[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56BCD6FE.4030107@semihalf.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:46:22 +0100
From: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc: bhelgaas@...gle.com, arnd@...db.de, will.deacon@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
okaya@...eaurora.org, jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com,
Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com,
robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, mw@...ihalf.com,
Liviu.Dudau@....com, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
wangyijing@...wei.com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com,
msalter@...hat.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
jchandra@...adcom.com, jcm@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 22/23] arm64, pci, acpi: Assign legacy IRQs once device
is enable.
On 11.02.2016 12:58, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> As for the MSI check, by reading commit history its need I think
> it harks back to bba6f6fc, which was supposed to be a quick hack and it
> has been in the kernel for 9 years:), is it really needed ?
IMO, yes it is needed. We need to chose MSI vs IRQ, and MSI is
preferable option.
Tomasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists