On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:24 PM Piotr Stankiewicz piotr.stankiewicz@intel.com wrote:
Seeing as there is shorthand available to use when asking for any type of interrupt, or any type of message signalled interrupt, leverage it.
Signed-off-by: Piotr Stankiewicz piotr.stankiewicz@intel.com Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevchenko@intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c index 5ed4227f304b..6dbe173a9fd4 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_irq.c @@ -251,11 +251,11 @@ int amdgpu_irq_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev) int nvec = pci_msix_vec_count(adev->pdev); unsigned int flags;
if (nvec <= 0) {
if (nvec > 0)flags = PCI_IRQ_MSI_TYPES;else flags = PCI_IRQ_MSI;
} else {flags = PCI_IRQ_MSI | PCI_IRQ_MSIX;}
/* we only need one vector */ nvec = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(adev->pdev, 1, 1, flags);
I'm not sure if you have seen my last comment internally about this patch.
I don't understand why we need these pci_msix_vec_count() followed by conditional at all. Perhaps we may simple drop all these and supply flag directly?
But OTOH, I don't know the initial motivation, so, the above patch is non-intrusive and keeps original logic.
if (nvec > 0) {-- 2.17.2