[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ide
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] ata: ahci: Support per-port interrupts
From:       Christoph Hellwig <hch () infradead ! org>
Date:       2019-05-23 9:36:25
Message-ID: 20190523093625.GA26136 () infradead ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

> --- a/drivers/ata/acard-ahci.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/acard-ahci.c
> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static int acard_ahci_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id
>  	if (!hpriv)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	hpriv->irq = pdev->irq;
> +	hpriv->irqs[0] = pdev->irq;
>  	hpriv->flags |= (unsigned long)pi.private_data;

Who allocates ->irqs for the non-ahci.c case?

> @@ -95,6 +96,14 @@ static void ahci_platform_disable_phys(struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +int ahci_get_per_port_irq_vector(struct ata_host *host, int port)
> +{
> +	struct ahci_host_priv *hpriv = host->private_data;
> +
> +	return hpriv->irqs[port];
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ahci_get_per_port_irq_vector);

This function seems a little misnamed.  The only multi-irq support in
the AHCI spec itself is PCIe MSI/MSI-X, which is not handled by this
function, but instead in the PCI layer using pci_irq_vector and the
ahci_get_irq_vector callback in ahci.c.

In fact it seems like this scheme particular to your device config,
why don't we just add a specific libahci-using subdriver for it?  That
would also get rid of the whole ->irq to ->irqs change.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]