[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200426070118.GA2083720@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 09:01:18 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc: vkoul@...nel.org, megha.dey@...ux.intel.com, maz@...nel.org,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, rafael@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com, jacob.jun.pan@...el.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, jgg@...lanox.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com,
baolu.lu@...el.com, kevin.tian@...el.com, sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, jing.lin@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
kwankhede@...dia.com, eric.auger@...hat.com, parav@...lanox.com,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/15] drivers/base: Introduce platform_msi_ops
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:33:53PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> From: Megha Dey <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>
>
> This is a preparatory patch to introduce Interrupt Message Store (IMS).
>
> Until now, platform-msi.c provided a generic way to handle non-PCI MSI
> interrupts. Platform-msi uses its parent chip's mask/unmask routines
> and only provides a way to write the message in the generating device.
>
> Newly creeping non-PCI complaint MSI-like interrupts (Intel's IMS for
> instance) might need to provide a device specific mask and unmask callback
> as well, apart from the write function.
>
> Hence, introduce a new structure platform_msi_ops, which would provide
> device specific write function as well as other device specific callbacks
> (mask/unmask).
>
> Signed-off-by: Megha Dey <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>
As this is not following the Intel-specific rules for sending me new
code, I am just deleting it all from my inbox.
Please follow the rules you all have been given, they are specific and
there for a reason. And in looking at this code, those rules are not
going away any time soon.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists