[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m18xbcc2ai.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:10:13 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Jay Cliburn <jacliburn@...lsouth.net>,
Grzegorz Krzystek <ninex@...eX.eu.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, ninex@...pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] msi: Invert the sense of the MSI enables.
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com> writes:
> > > - In spec hardware does not require MSI to generate interrupts
> > > Which leaves enabling MSI optional.
> >
> > Actually at least the Qlogic/Pathscale PCI Express ipath adapters
> > cannot generate INTx interrupts -- they definitely do require MSI to
> > operate.
>
> Oh yeah... when I first found out about this, I rechecked the PCI
> Express spec and found that in fact legacy INTx interrupts are
> optional. So the ipath adapters that require MSI do conform to the
> spec.
Hmm...
I find in section 6.1:
> In addition to PCI INTx compatible interrupt emulation, PCI Express
> requires support of MSI or MSI-X or both.
Which suggests that INTx support is required.
I do not find any wording that suggest the opposite.
I do see it stated that it is intended to EOL support for INTx at
some point.
Where did you see it mentioned that INTx was optional?
I do see it clearly stating that MSI is the preferred mechanism from
pci express.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists