On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote:
> + for (irq_index = 0, i = 0; i < len / (2 * sizeof(u32)); i++) {
> + if (p[i * 2] % IRQS_PER_MSI_REG ||
> + p[i * 2 + 1] % IRQS_PER_MSI_REG) {
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %s: msi available range of
> %u at %u is not IRQ-aligned\n",
> + __func__, dev->dev.of_node->full_name,
> + p[i * 2 + 1], p[i * 2]);
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto error_out;
> + }
> +
> + offset = p[i * 2] / IRQS_PER_MSI_REG;
> + count = p[i * 2 + 1] / IRQS_PER_MSI_REG;
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < count; j++, irq_index++) {
> + err = fsl_msi_setup_hwirq(msi, dev, offset,
> irq_index);
Scott,
I know it's been eight months since you posted this patch, but I'm not
sure this part is correct. fsl_msi_setup_hwirq() does this:
cascade_data->index = offset + irq_index;
"cascade_data->index" is supposed to be the index of the MSIIR
register, so it's a number between 0 and 7. irq_index is incremented
on every pass of loop 'j'. My understanding is that the following two
definitions of msi-available-ranges are equivalent:
static const u32 all_avail[] = { 0, NR_MSI_IRQS };
static const u32 all_avail[] = { 0, 64, 64, 32, 96, 32, 128, 32, 160, 96};
When I use the first definition, I get this on each call to
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq():
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=0 cascade_data->index=0
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=1 cascade_data->index=1
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=2 cascade_data->index=2
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=3 cascade_data->index=3
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=4 cascade_data->index=4
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=5 cascade_data->index=5
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=6 cascade_data->index=6
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=7 cascade_data->index=7
But when I use the second definition of all_avail[], I get this instead:
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=0 cascade_data->index=0
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=0 irq_index=1 cascade_data->index=1
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=2 irq_index=2 cascade_data->index=4
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=3 irq_index=3 cascade_data->index=6
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=4 irq_index=4 cascade_data->index=8
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=5 irq_index=5 cascade_data->index=10
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=5 irq_index=6 cascade_data->index=11
fsl_msi_setup_hwirq:299 offset=5 irq_index=7 cascade_data->index=12
The problem is that both offset and irq_index are being incremented in
the loop, and cascade_data->index is set to the sum of the two.
Perhaps you meant this:
err = fsl_msi_setup_hwirq(msi, dev, offset, j);
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
