On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 15:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Plus this scheme is basically just better - it won't force
> > all the functions of a multi-function device to share an interrupt.
>
> Only if some functions use pin != INTA. Maybe it's true for
> pseries? On the pc most of them
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 09:47:47PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:03:57PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:17:36PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > Currently the pseries PCI code uses a somewhat strange scheme of PCI irq
> > > allocation - one
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:03:57PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:17:36PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > Currently the pseries PCI code uses a somewhat strange scheme of PCI irq
> > allocation - one per slot up to a maximum that's greater than the usual 4.
> > This sc
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 02:17:36PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> Currently the pseries PCI code uses a somewhat strange scheme of PCI irq
> allocation - one per slot up to a maximum that's greater than the usual 4.
> This scheme more or less worked, because we were able to tell the guest the
> irq m
Currently the pseries PCI code uses a somewhat strange scheme of PCI irq
allocation - one per slot up to a maximum that's greater than the usual 4.
This scheme more or less worked, because we were able to tell the guest the
irq mapping in the device tree, however it's nonstandard and may break
assu
