From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:17:39 +1000

quoted text
> On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 16:29 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Ben.  Multi-MSI is a crap hardware design.  Why do you think we have
> > MSI-X?  
> 
> I know and I agree. Which is why I'd rather keep the SW crap totally
> local to the MSI support code and not add new concepts to the generic
> IRQ API such as sub-channels, for which it's really not ready for imho.
> 
> They -are- separate IRQs, just badly implemented. Besides, a large part
> of the problem is purely due to the typical x86 implementation of them,
> since for example, on most PowerPC's (and possibly other archs), they
> tend to land in the PIC as normal sources, and as such benefit from all
> the "features" of such interrupts like HW masking, affinity control,
> etc... at the PIC level.

This is how it works on sparc64 too.

The x86 system designers decided to implement multi-MSI in an
inconvenient way, it is not a "crap hardware design", merely
some (unfortunately common) implementations of it happen to be.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/