[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72a43c0479c32de844efe6a809daa53ca6a38d37.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 12:46:05 +0100
From: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Tobias Schumacher <ts@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev
<agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger
<borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald
Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerd Bayer
<gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>, Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Rosato
<mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Farhan Ali
<alifm@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] genirq: s390/pci: Migrate MSI interrupts to
irqdomain API
On Thu, 2025-12-04 at 12:20 +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 06:05:00AM +0100, Tobias Schumacher wrote:
> > This patch series reworks the PCIe interrupt handling on s390 by
> > migrating it to use a proper MSI parent domain. Introducing a dedicated
> > MSI domain hierarchy aligns s390 PCIe support with the generic Linux IRQ
> > domain model. Currently s390 is one of the last architectures still using
> > the legacy API.
>
> Is there any reason why this should be squeezed into the current merge
> window? Would it make somebody's life significantly easier?
>
> Otherwise this has to wait until the next merge window.
>From my s390 PCI point of view it's fine for this to wait until the
next merge window.
Thanks,
Niklas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists