[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200825213501.GA1931388@bjorn-Precision-5520>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:35:01 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Megha Dey <megha.dey@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch RFC 30/38] PCI/MSI: Allow to disable arch fallbacks
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:28:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25 2020 at 15:07, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> + * The arch hooks to setup up msi irqs. Default functions are implemented
> >> + * as weak symbols so that they /can/ be overriden by architecture specific
> >> + * code if needed.
> >> + *
> >> + * They can be replaced by stubs with warnings via
> >> + * CONFIG_PCI_MSI_DISABLE_ARCH_FALLBACKS when the architecture fully
> >> + * utilizes direct irqdomain based setup.
> > If not, it seems like it'd be nicer to have the burden on the arches
> > that need/want to use arch-specific code instead of on the arches that
> > do things generically.
>
> Right, but they still share the common code there and some of them
> provide only parts of the weak callbacks. I'm not sure whether it's a
> good idea to copy all of this into each affected architecture.
>
> Or did you just mean that those architectures should select
> CONFIG_I_WANT_THE CRUFT instead of opting out on the fully irq domain
> based ones?
Yes, that was my real question -- can we confine the cruft in the
crufty arches? If not, no big deal.
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists