lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: libata, devm_*, and MSI ?
Mark Lord wrote:
> Tejun / Jeff,
>
> I am working on MSI support for sata_mv, and am trying to puzzle out
> exactly what the kernel expects for this. Looking at other drivers,
> both libata and otherwise, yields a variety of conflicting implementations.
>
> For starters, the MSI HOW-TO suggests that drivers must be careful
> to invoke pci_disable_msi() on module unload, but I don't see that
> happening anywhere in libata.
>
> Unless, Tejun, the devm_* routines automatically do this.. do they?
>
> Next, there's no mention of a need for invoking pci_intx() in the HOW-TO,
> yet some device drivers call it, and others do not.
>
> Eg. from ahci.c, we have this:
>
> if ((hpriv->flags & AHCI_HFLAG_NO_MSI) || pci_enable_msi(pdev))
> pci_intx(pdev, 1);
>
> Which agrees with the existing code in sata_mv:
>
> if (msi && pci_enable_msi(pdev))
> pci_intx(pdev, 1);
>
> Which seems to call pci_intx() only when MSI is *not* used. Fine.
> But then in sata_vsc.c, we do sort of the opposite:
>
> if (pci_enable_msi(pdev) == 0)
> pci_intx(pdev, 0);
>
> Either that one is wrong, or pci_intx() is unnecessary in all cases.
> Again, the MSI HOW-TO doesn't even mention this routine.
>
> Looking through the network drivers, it seems that some of them
> do the pci_intx(pdev,1) call for the cases where pci_enable_msi() fails,
> similar to ahci.c and sata_mv.c.
>
> But not all of them do that.
..

Looking through drivers/pci/*, it appears that the call to pci_intx()
should be totally redundant. pci_enable_msi() does pci_intx(pdev,0)
on success only, and doesn't touch it otherwise.
Similarly, pci_disable_msi() does pci_intx(pdev,1).

So, where does libata cause pci_disable_msi() to be invoked?
Or is that just missing at the moment?

Thanks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-20 17:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans