From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: [PATCH 0/4] ns16550: enable support for Pericom controllers Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:22:35 -0700 Message-ID: <56CC4F0B02000078000D5290@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aYB3B-0001MY-0R for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:22:41 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: xen-devel Cc: Ian Campbell , Keir Fraser , Tim Deegan , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Patches 1 and 2 are meant to go in. Patch 3 is a prerequisite to patch 4 and may go in as well, but patch 4 is RFC because with the Pericom board I have MSI doesn't appear to function. Since it also does not work in baremetal Linux when doing the trivial adjustments needed in its driver, I suspect the feature doesn't work in general, which is supported by the observation that the device continues to assert INTx despite the MSI enable bit being set (causing unclaimed IRQs until that IRQ gets shut off). While I got some responses back from Pericom support, no actual statement of whether MSI is actually known to work on their boards was ever made by them. I _think_ patch 4 is correct (and hence could go in), but I have no way of proving this by testing. 1: ns16550: store pointer to config parameters for PCI 2: ns16550: enable Pericom controller support 3: console: adjust IRQ initialization 4: ns16550: enable use of PCI MSI Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich (Konrad, I'd appreciate if you could double check that I didn't accidentally break the Oxford controller support.)