From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935184Ab3DPNIY (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:08:24 -0400 Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:33940 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934358Ab3DPNIW (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:08:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:07:59 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Joerg Roedel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Prarit Bhargava , Don Zickus , Don Dutile , Bjorn Helgaas , Asit Mallick , David Woodhouse , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Arkadiusz =?utf-8?Q?Mi=C5=9Bkiewicz?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] irq: add quirk for broken interrupt remapping on 55XX chipsets Message-ID: <20130416130759.GA9241@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1362158276-4901-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1366065677-3431-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <20130416102454.GS6858@8bytes.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130416102454.GS6858@8bytes.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:24:54PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:41:17PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_REMAP > > +static void __init intel_remapping_check(int num, int slot, int func) > > +{ > > + u8 revision; > > + > > + revision = read_pci_config_byte(num, slot, func, PCI_REVISION_ID); > > + > > + /* > > + * Revision 0x13 of this chipset supports irq remapping > > + * but has an erratum that breaks its behavior, flag it as such > > + */ > > + if (revision == 0x13) > > + irq_remap_broken = 1; > > + > > +} > > +#else > > Any reason why you don't check this in the Intel IOMMU init code? You > would safe the ifdefs and you don't have to include > irq-remapping-internal header files somewhere else in the tree. > > > Joerg > Mostly because we've spent so much time early in this thread talking about where the quirk should go, that after this last revision, it didn't even occur to me that, using this new approach, we don't even need a quirk anymore. That makes way more sense to me though, I'll revise the patch again :(. Neil