[PATCH v3] PCI: Xilinx-NWL-PCIe: Added support for Xilinx NWL PCIe Host Controller

Bharat Kumar Gogada bharat.kumar.gogada at xilinx.com
Fri Oct 9 01:51:25 PDT 2015

> On 09/10/15 06:11, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> >>>> +struct nwl_msi {                  /* struct nwl_msi - MSI information
> >> */
> >>>> +  struct msi_controller chip;     /* chip: MSI controller */
> >>>
> >>>> We're moving away from msi_controller altogether, as the kernel now
> >>>> has all the necessary infrastructure to do this properly.
> >>>
> >>> Our current GIC version does not have separate msi controller (we
> >>> are not using GICv2m or GICv3), so is it necessary to have separate
> >>> msi controller node ? Please give me clarity on this.
> >>
> >> This has nothing to do with the version of the GIC you are using
> >> (XGene doesn't have GICv2m or v3 either). This is about reducing code
> >> duplication and having something that we can maintain. See also
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/20/193 for yet another example.
> >>
> >> I still plan to kill msi_controller, and I'd like to avoid more
> >> dependencies with it. MSI domains are the way to do it.
> >>
> > Sorry previously I haven't configured my email client properly so resending.
> Thanks for doing so, much appreciated.
> > Since we don't have separate MSI controller, and our PCIe controller
> > is handling MSI, is it necessary to create a separate MSI controller
> > node because we don't have any 'reg' space.
> No, your PCI controller can perfectly be part of the PCIe node.
You meant 'msi-controller' property to be part of PCIe node?

> > Please let me know whether we require a separate msi file as suggested
> > in your previous comments to separate MSI controller and PCIE
> > controller in two files, if we don't have separate node. If we do not
> > need a separate node do we need to embed MSI controller child node  in
> > PCIe controller node itself, and what properties does this child node
> > will require other than 'interrupts'.
> If you want to keep them in the same file, please at least have two separate
> patches. These are two different functions, and they should be reviewed
> separately.
What I meant is if we don't have separate msi node do we need separate file? 
If you meant msi controller to be part of same node then we will use single file and will
try to have two separate patches.


> It will help everyone to understand your code, and speed up the reviewing
> process.
> Thanks,
> 	M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list