On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:43:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 08:24 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:43:15PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 08:24 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM
On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 08:24 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > In the future we would use dynamic
On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 08:24 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > In the future we would use dynamic
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
> > > non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
> > > non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
> > non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC domain. Thus, we need to respect return
> > value
> > of
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
> > non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC domain. Thus, we need to respect return
> > value
> > of
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
> non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC domain. Thus, we need to respect return value
> of mp_map_gsi_to_irq() and assign it back to the device structure.
>
> Besides that we
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
> non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC domain. Thus, we need to respect return value
> of mp_map_gsi_to_irq() and assign it back to the device structure.
>
> Besides that we
In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC domain. Thus, we need to respect return value
of mp_map_gsi_to_irq() and assign it back to the device structure.
Besides that we need to read GSI from interrupt pin register to avoid
cases when some
In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC domain. Thus, we need to respect return value
of mp_map_gsi_to_irq() and assign it back to the device structure.
Besides that we need to read GSI from interrupt pin register to avoid
cases when some
12 matches
Mail list logo
