On Tue, Sep 10 2024 at 18:18, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> +
> +struct mip_priv {
> + /* used to protect bitmap alloc/free */
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + void __iomem *base;
> + u64 msg_addr;
> + u32 msi_base;
> + u32 num_msis;
> + unsigned long *bitmap;
> + struct irq_domain *parent;
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#struct-declarations-and-initializers
And please read the rest of the document too.
> +};
> +
> +static void mip_mask_msi_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> + pci_msi_mask_irq(d);
> + irq_chip_mask_parent(d);
> +}
> +
> +static void mip_unmask_msi_irq(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> + pci_msi_unmask_irq(d);
> + irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
This is asymmetric vs. mask(), but that's just the usual copy & pasta
problem.
> +}
> +static int mip_init_domains(struct mip_priv *priv, struct device_node *np)
> +{
> + struct irq_domain *middle_domain, *msi_domain;
> +
> + middle_domain = irq_domain_add_hierarchy(priv->parent, 0,
> + priv->num_msis, np,
> + &mip_middle_domain_ops,
> + priv);
> + if (!middle_domain)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + msi_domain = pci_msi_create_irq_domain(of_node_to_fwnode(np),
> + &mip_msi_domain_info,
> + middle_domain);
> + if (!msi_domain) {
> + irq_domain_remove(middle_domain);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
This is not much different. Please convert this to a proper MSI parent
domain and let the PCI/MSI core handle the PCI/MSI part.
See
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/log/?h=irq-msi-2024-07-22
for reference.
Thanks,
tglx
