On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 21:34 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 03.03.2011 [23:24:44 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 04.03.2011 [14:01:24 +1100], Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > Looking closer at your patch, now I don't understand :)
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * disabling MSI with the explicit interface also disables MSI-X
> > > + */
> > > + if (rtas_change_msi(pdn, RTAS_CHANGE_MSI_FN, 0) != 0) {
> > >
> > >
> > > So we first disable using function 3, which should:
> > >
> > > 3: Request to set to a new number of MSI interrupts (including
> > > set to 0)
> > >
> > > Which does not mention MSI-X at all, implying it has no effect on them.
> > > Which contradicts what you see, and the comment in the code?
> >
> > Thanks for the thorough review!
> >
> > Per PAPR 2.4 from Power.org, look at the page before that table, page
> > 169:
> >
> > "Specifying Function 3 (MSI) also disables MSI-X for the specified IOA
> > function, and likewise specifying Function 4 (MSI-X) disables MSI for
> > the IOA function....Specifying the Requested Number of Interrupts to
> > zero for either Function 3 or 4 removes all MSI & MSI-X interrupts from
> > the IOA function."
> >
> > So I'm relying on this aspect of PAPR being enforced by the firmware,
> > which I think it is in my testing.
>
> Given all that, do I have your Ack? :)Indeed. Thanks for clarifying it. Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mich...@ellerman.id.au> cheers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
