> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:55 AM
> To: Jia Hongtao-B38951
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; ga...@kernel.crashing.org; Wood Scott-
> B07421; Li Yang-R58472; Jia Hongtao-B38951
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/85xx: workaround for chips with MSI
> hardware errata
>
> On 03/25/2013 10:28:47 PM, Jia Hongtao wrote:
> > The MPIC version 2.0 has a MSI errata (errata PIC1 of mpc8544), It
> > causes that neither MSI nor MSI-X can work fine. This is a workaround
> > to allow MSI-X to function properly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Shuo <soniccat....@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <le...@freescale.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jia Hongtao <hongtao....@freescale.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.c | 47
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.c
> > b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.c index 178c994..d2f8040 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@
> > #include "fsl_msi.h"
> > #include "fsl_pci.h"
> >
> > +#define MSI_HW_ERRATA_ENDIAN 0x00000010
It seems Kumar like put this just in fsl_msi.c.
Here is the comments from Kumar few days ago:
"Is there any reason to put this in fsl_msi.h rather than just in
fsl_msi.c itself?"
I think the all the #defines should be together.
Ether all in .h or all in .c.
In this case I prefer your idea.
>
> This should probably be kept in the same place as the other
> msi->features definitions (e.g. FSL_PIC_IP_*).
>
> > +/* MPIC version 2.0 has erratum PIC1 */ static int
> > +mpic_has_errata(void) {
> > + if (mpic_primary_get_version() == 0x0200)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> mpic_has_erratum_pic1()
You are right.
Good advice.
>
> > + if ((features->fsl_pic_ip & FSL_PIC_IP_MASK) ==
> > FSL_PIC_IP_MPIC) {
> > + rc = mpic_has_errata();
> > + if (rc > 0) {
> > + msi->feature |= MSI_HW_ERRATA_ENDIAN;
> > + } else if (rc < 0) {
> > + err = rc;
> > + goto error_out;
> > + }
>
> When would mpic_has_errata() ever return a negative value (maybe
> mpic_primary_get_version could fail, but you don't allow for that in the
> interface)?
>
> If you're not going to add a way for errors to be returned back, just
> do:
>
> if (mpic_has_erratum_pic1())
> msi->feature |= MSI_HW_ERRATA_ENDIAN;
>
> -Scott
I will update the mpic_primary_get_version() and it will return 0 if failed.
Based on the new mpic_primary_get_version() I agree with this.
Thanks.
-Hongtao.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
