Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 2/6] acpi: pci: Setup MSI domain for ACPI based pci devices | From | Suravee Suthikulpanit <> | Date | Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:18:45 -0600 |
| |
Hi Marc,
On 11/19/15 06:08, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:47:25 -0700 > Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> wrote: > > Hi Suravee, > > Sorry it took so long to get to this series. Comments below.
No worry.
> >> This patch introduces pci_host_bridge_acpi_msi_domain(), which returns >> the MSI domain of the specified PCI host bridge with DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI >> bus token. Then, it is assigned to pci device. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> >> --- >> drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> drivers/pci/probe.c | 2 ++ >> include/linux/pci.h | 7 +++++++ >> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c >> index a32ba75..0e21ef4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c >> @@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ >> >> #include <linux/delay.h> >> #include <linux/init.h> >> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h> >> #include <linux/pci.h> >> +#include <linux/msi.h> >> #include <linux/pci_hotplug.h> >> #include <linux/module.h> >> #include <linux/pci-aspm.h> >> @@ -689,6 +691,17 @@ static struct acpi_bus_type acpi_pci_bus = { >> .cleanup = pci_acpi_cleanup, >> }; >> >> +struct irq_domain *pci_host_bridge_acpi_msi_domain(struct pci_bus *bus) >> +{ >> + struct irq_domain *dom = NULL; >> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = pci_msi_get_fwnode(&bus->dev); >> + >> + if (fwnode) >> + dom = irq_find_matching_fwnode(fwnode, >> + DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI); >> + return dom; >> +} >> + > > Given this, I really question the need for what you define in patch #1 > to be standalone. It is only used by ACPI (DT has its own private > helpers), and it is so far unlikely that it will be of any use for > other firmware interfaces. > > My suggestion is to get rid of pci_msi_get_fwnode() and move the > registration helper into this file. That'd be much simpler. > > Thanks, > > M. >
Ok, I'll take care of this. I assume the rest of the patches looks ok.
Thanks, Suravee
| |