[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y51qohjn.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:32:12 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: Get rid of superfluous call to pci_disable_msi()
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com> writes:
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c | 2 --
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c
> index 29fd197..6525e1f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/pci.c
> @@ -2414,8 +2414,6 @@ static int ath10k_pci_init_irq(struct ath10k *ar)
> ret = pci_enable_msi_block(ar_pci->pdev, ar_pci->num_msi_intrs);
> if (ret == 0)
> return 0;
> - if (ret > 0)
> - pci_disable_msi(ar_pci->pdev);
I don't understand how this is superfluous. When I read the
documentation for pci_enable_msi_block() it states that if it can't
allocate all requests, it will return the number requests it could
allocate. And in that case we want to fall back other modes.
Am I missing something?
--
Kalle Valo
--
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