[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<BM1PR01MB2545B1CE7F4B917E9015F4ABFEE12@BM1PR01MB2545.INDPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:54:16 +0800
From: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
To: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>, Chen Wang <unicornxw@...il.com>,
u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, arnd@...db.de,
conor+dt@...nel.org, guoren@...nel.org, inochiama@...look.com,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
robh@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
chao.wei@...hgo.com, xiaoguang.xing@...hgo.com, fengchun.li@...hgo.com,
samuel.holland@...ive.com, christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] irqchip: Add the Sophgo SG2042 MSI interrupt
controller
On 2025/1/20 10:43, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 02:33:45PM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:
[......]
>> +#define SG2042_MSI_FLAGS_REQUIRED (MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_DOM_OPS | \
>> + MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS)
>> +
>> +#define SG2042_MSI_FLAGS_SUPPORTED MSI_GENERIC_FLAGS_MASK
>> +
> I think it is just OK to set the flag directly in the msi_parent_ops.
This shouldn't be a big problem, maybe it will be convenient for future
expansion.
>> +static struct msi_parent_ops sg2042_msi_parent_ops = {
>> + .required_flags = SG2042_MSI_FLAGS_REQUIRED,
>> + .supported_flags = SG2042_MSI_FLAGS_SUPPORTED,
>> + .bus_select_mask = MATCH_PCI_MSI,
>> + .bus_select_token = DOMAIN_BUS_NEXUS,
>> + .prefix = "SG2042-",
>> + .init_dev_msi_info = msi_lib_init_dev_msi_info,
>> +};
> This struct should be const.
Yes, will fix this in next version.
Thanks,
Chen
[......]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists