On 2019-10-23 18:02, Florian Fainelli wrote:
Hello marc,
On 10/23/19 6:22 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Hi Florian,
Needless to say, I mostly have questions...
On 2019-10-23 01:05, Florian Fainelli wrote:
SGI interrupts are a convenient way for trusted firmware to target
a
specific set of CPUs. Update the ARM GIC code to allow the
translation
and mapping of SGI interrupts.
Since the kernel already uses SGIs for various inter-processor
interrupt
activities, we specifically make sure that we do not let users of
the
IRQ API to even try to map those.
Internal IPIs remain dispatched through handle_IPI() while public
SGIs
get promoted to a normal interrupt flow management.
Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 41
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index 30ab623343d3..dcfdbaacdd64 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -385,7 +385,10 @@ static void __exception_irq_entry
gic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
* Pairs with the write barrier in gic_raise_softirq
*/
smp_rmb();
- handle_IPI(irqnr, regs);
+ if (irqnr < NR_IPI)
+ handle_IPI(irqnr, regs);
+ else
+ handle_domain_irq(gic->domain, irqnr, regs);
Double EOI, UNPREDICTABLE territory, your state machine is now dead.
Oh yes, the interrupt flow now also goes through ->irq_eoi (that's
the
whole point), meh.
Indeed. But to be honest, we should probably consider moving all the
SGI
handling to normal interrupts. There's hardly any reason why we should
keep
SGIs out of the normal interrupt model, other than maybe performance
(and
that's pretty dubious).
#endif
continue;
}
@@ -1005,20 +1008,34 @@ static int gic_irq_domain_translate(struct
irq_domain *d,
if (fwspec->param_count < 3)
return -EINVAL;
- /* Get the interrupt number and add 16 to skip over SGIs
*/
- *hwirq = fwspec->param[1] + 16;
-
- /*
- * For SPIs, we need to add 16 more to get the GIC irq
- * ID number
- */
- if (!fwspec->param[0])
+ *hwirq = fwspec->param[1];
+ switch (fwspec->param[0]) {
+ case 0:
+ /*
+ * For SPIs, we need to add 16 more to get the GIC irq
+ * ID number
+ */
+ *hwirq += 16;
+ /* fall through */
+ case 1:
+ /* Add 16 to skip over SGIs */
*hwirq += 16;
+ *type = fwspec->param[2] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
- *type = fwspec->param[2] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
+ /* Make it clear that broken DTs are... broken */
+ WARN_ON(*type == IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
+ break;
+ case 2:
+ /* Refuse to map internal IPIs */
+ if (*hwirq < NR_IPI)
So depending on how the kernel uses SGIs, you can or cannot use
these SGIs.
That looks like a good way to corner ourselves into not being to
change
much.
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c has a forward looking statement about SGI
numbering:
/*
* SGI8-15 can be reserved by secure firmware, and thus may
* not be usable by the kernel. Please keep the above limited
* to at most 8 entries.
*/
is this something that can be used as an universal and unbreakable
rule
for the ARM64 kernel as well in order to ensure SGIs 8-15 can be
usable
through the IRQ API or is this simply not a guarantee at all?
There is no guarantee whatsoever. There's an ARM recommendation about
the
above split, but that's it. Hardly something that can be enforced.
Now, your firmware is the one that gives you the DT, so if it is
inconsistent
in configuring the interrupt and presenting it to the kernel, tough
luck.
Also, do you expect this to work for both Group-0 and Group-1
interrupts
(since you imply that this works as a communication medium with the
secure
side)? Given that the kernel running in NS has no way to
enable/disable
Group-0 interrupts, this looks terminally flawed. Or is that Group-1
only?
That would be Group-1 interrupts only, are you suggesting there is an
additional check being done that such SGIs are actually part of
Group-1?
You can try and change the configuration of that interrupt (priority,
for
example), and see if that sticks. If it doesn't, you're in trouble (and
nothing you can do about it).
How do we describe which SGIs are guaranteed to be available to
Linux?
In our case, the Device Tree mailbox node gets populated its
interrupts
property with the SGI number(s), and that same number is also passed
as
a configuration parameter to the trusted firmware. Or are you echoing
back to your earlier comment about the fact that if the kernel
changes
its own definition of NR_IPI then we suddenly start breaking IRQ API
uses of SGIs in a certain range?
That's indeed my worry. There is also the fact that the kernel itself
will
never expose such reservation in DT, so we'd have to tread carefully
here.
We probably need to specify that *only* SGI8-15 are allowed to be
described
as such.
Another thing: why don't you use a PPI? If you use a GICv2, you're also
using
ancient cores, and they have PPIs to spare. Or do you rely on being
able to
inject interrupts from one core to another?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
