> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Ellerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:35 PM
> To: Jin Zhengxiong
> Cc: linuxppc-dev list; Gala Kumar
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] MSI driver for Freescale 83xx/85xx/86xx cpu
>
> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 18:01 +0800, Jin Zhengxiong wrote:
> > Hi, Michael,
> >
> > Thank you very much for you input, please see my inline answer.
>
> No worries.
>
> > > > +static int fsl_msi_reserve_dt_hwirqs(struct fsl_msi *msi) {
> > > > + int i, len;
> > > > + const u32 *p;
> > > > +
> > > > + p = of_get_property(msi->of_node,
> "msi-available-ranges", &len);
> > > > + if (!p) {
> > > > + pr_debug("fsl_msi: no msi-available-ranges
> > > property found \
> > > > + on %s\n",
> msi->of_node->full_name);
> > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (len & 0x8 != 0) {
> > > > + printk(KERN_WARNING "fsl_msi: Malformed
> > > msi-available-ranges "
> > > > + "property on %s\n",
> msi->of_node->full_name);
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Do you really want a bitwise and with 0x8?
> > >
> > The range for the msi interrupt can be seperated to several part.
> > This can used to check the if the ranges is correct.
>
> I don't see how. AFAIK the "msi-available-ranges" property is
> just a list of u32 pairs, so the only thing that makes sense
> is to check that the length is a multiple of 8, not that it
> has the 3rd bit set.
>
I found the problem. I'll check the length if it's a multiple of 8.
Thanks
> > > > +static void fsl_compose_msi_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> int hwirq,
> > > > + struct msi_msg *msg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned int srs;
> > > > + unsigned int ibs;
> > > > + struct fsl_msi *msi = fsl_msi;
> > > > +
> > > > + srs = hwirq / INT_PER_MSIR;
> > > > + ibs = hwirq % INT_PER_MSIR;
> > > > +
> > > > + msg->address_lo = msi->msi_addr_lo;
> > > > + msg->address_hi = msi->msi_addr_hi;
> > > > + msg->data = (srs << 5) | (ibs & 0x1F);
> > >
> > > Is the 5 and 0x1F independent of the INT_PER_MSIR value?
> Given the
> > > current values isn't this a no-op, or am I missing something?
> > >
> > Do you mean there're another way to get the msg->data from
> the hwirq?
>
> No I mean I'm confused about the maths here. If we pull out
> the variables it boils down to:
>
> data = ((hwirq / 32) << 5) | ((hwirq % 32) & 0x1F)
>
> Which doesn't seem to actually do anything?
>
Thanks, The hwirq number can stand for the data to the msiir in this
case.
I'll change this.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
