[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <EE11001F9E5DDD47B7634E2F8A612F2E1629EF42@lhreml503-mbs>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:43:12 +0000
From: Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
"majun (F)" <majun258@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
CC: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC 7/7] irqchip: [Example] dummy wired interrupt/MSI
bridge driver
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:marc.zyngier@....com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 9:36 AM
> To: Gabriele Paoloni; majun (F); Thomas Gleixner; Jiang Liu; Jason
> Cooper
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] irqchip: [Example] dummy wired
> interrupt/MSI bridge driver
>
> On 05/11/15 08:25, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > Hi Marc
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: linux-pci-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pci-
> owner@...r.kernel.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Marc Zyngier
> >> Sent: 04 November 2015 09:04
> >> To: majun (F); Thomas Gleixner; Jiang Liu; Jason Cooper
> >> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-
> >> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] irqchip: [Example] dummy wired
> interrupt/MSI
> >> bridge driver
> >>
> >> On 04/11/15 08:00, majun (F) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> I think,for a interrupt controller, msichip driver initialization
> maybe is
> >> too late
> >>> for some devices which connect to this irqchip if we use
> >> module_platform_driver.
> >>
> >> That's a consequence of this design. This is why I insisted on the
> fact
> >> that this is currently avoided by using deferred probe in drivers,
> and
> >
> > Mmm using te deferred probe would mean to rework all the drivers of
> the
> > potential devices connected to mbi-gen...would that be
> sustainable/acceptable?
>
> I'm tempted to reply "Not my problem". Or rather, not a problem I'm
> trying to solve right now (or any time soon).
>
> I'm pretty sure that sprinkling -EPROBE_DEFER on all possible drivers
> will result in a resounding NAK, which is is why I suggested that
> someone with a vested interest dedicates some quality time helping
> those
> who are trying to solve this issue for good.
Yes you're right, makes perfect sense
>
> >> that it should be solved by having a probe order. Either way, this
> is
> >> not something that we can solve at that level (see the multiple
> proposal
> >> for this on the various lists).
> >
> > Could you point me to the relevant discussions for this...?
>
> Google is, as always, your dearest friend. But here you go:
>
> - LWN has some quality coverage of the KS discussions (assuming you're
> a
> subscriber, otherwise you'll have to wait for another week):
> http://lwn.net/Articles/662820/
>
> - There is also Tomeu Vizoso's series, which itself builds upon other
> previous attempts at solving this: https://lwn.net/Articles/658690/
>
Great, many thanks for pointing them out.
I'll look into these.
Thanks again
Gab
> Thanks,
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists