Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> writes:
> On 03/10/2010 04:51 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 12:06 +0000, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:55 AM, <i...@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> From: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com>
>>>>
>>>> Move arch_init_copy_chip_data and arch_free_chip_data into function
>>>> pointers in struct irq_chip since they operate on irq_desc->chip_data.
>>>>
>>>> arch_init_chip_data cannot be moved into struct irq_chip at this time
>>>> because irq_desc->chip is not known at the time the irq_desc is
>>>> setup. For now rename arch_init_chip_data to arch_init_irq_desc (for
>>>> PowerPC, the only other user, whose usage better matches the new name)
>>>> and on x86 convert arch_init_chip_data to ioapic_init_chip_data and
>>>> call this whenever the IO APIC code allocates a new IRQ.
>>>>
>>>> I've retained the chip_data behaviour for uv_irq although it isn't
>>>> clear to me if these interrupt types support migration or how closely
>>>> related to the APIC modes they really are. If it weren't for this the
>>>> ioapic_{init,copy,free}_chip_data functions could be static to
>>>> io_apic.c.
>>>>
>>>> I've tested by booting on a 64 bit system, but it's not clear to me
>>>> what actions I need to take to actually exercise some of these code
>>>> paths.
>>>>
>>>
>>> can you just add another pointer field in irq_desc?
>>>
>>> some kind of *irq_info etc.
>>
>> I think I don't understand what you are suggesting.
>>
>> There is already a pointer for irq_chip specific use i.e.
>> irq_desc->chip_data. This patchset is just about ensuring that the field
>> really is available to any chip implementation rather than just assuming
>> it is always used for the acpi chip types (on x86 at least).
>>
>> Does adding a second pointer with the same (intended?) semantics as the
>> existing one buy us anything?
>
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_INTR_REMAP
> struct irq_2_iommu *irq_2_iommu;
> #endif
> struct irq_chip *chip;
> struct msi_desc *msi_desc;
>
> we already have that for irq_2_iommu and msi_desc
Those are at different levels of the hierarchy. Adding another pointer
for Xen is like having a different iommu and so adding another pointer
to handle that kind of iommu.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
