Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The Linux PCI framework requires it's own dedicated MSI irqdomain so
> let us create PCI MSI irqdomain as child of the IMSIC base irqdomain.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/Kconfig | 7 +++
> drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-imsic-platform.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-imsic-state.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> index bdd80716114d..c1d69b418dfb 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> @@ -552,6 +552,13 @@ config RISCV_IMSIC
> select IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
> select GENERIC_MSI_IRQ
>
> +config RISCV_IMSIC_PCI
> + bool
> + depends on RISCV_IMSIC
> + depends on PCI
> + depends on PCI_MSI
> + default RISCV_IMSIC
> +
> config EXYNOS_IRQ_COMBINER
> bool "Samsung Exynos IRQ combiner support" if COMPILE_TEST
> depends on (ARCH_EXYNOS && ARM) || COMPILE_TEST
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-imsic-platform.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-imsic-platform.c
> index 23d286cb017e..cdb659401199 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-imsic-platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-imsic-platform.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/msi.h>
> +#include <linux/pci.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> @@ -215,6 +216,42 @@ static const struct irq_domain_ops imsic_base_domain_ops = {
> #endif
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_IMSIC_PCI
> +
> +static void imsic_pci_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> + pci_msi_mask_irq(d);
> + irq_chip_mask_parent(d);
I've asked this before, but I still don't get why you need to propagate
to the parent? Why isn't masking on PCI enough?
Björn
