Hi Vikas,
On 11/9/20 7:41 AM, Vikas Gupta wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 8:42 AM Alex Williamson
> <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:24:26 +0530
>> Vikas Gupta <vikas.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:38 PM Alex Williamson
>>> <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:32:55 +0530
>>>> Vikas Gupta <vikas.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>>> index 2f313a238a8f..aab051e8338d 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h
>>>>> @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ struct vfio_device_info {
>>>>> #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_AP (1 << 5) /* vfio-ap device */
>>>>> #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_FSL_MC (1 << 6) /* vfio-fsl-mc device */
>>>>> #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_CAPS (1 << 7) /* Info supports caps */
>>>>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_MSI (1 << 8) /* Device supports msi */
>>>>> __u32 num_regions; /* Max region index + 1 */
>>>>> __u32 num_irqs; /* Max IRQ index + 1 */
>>>>> __u32 cap_offset; /* Offset within info struct of first cap */
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't make any sense to me, MSIs are just edge triggered
>>>> interrupts to userspace, so why isn't this fully described via
>>>> VFIO_DEVICE_GET_IRQ_INFO? If we do need something new to describe it,
>>>> this seems incomplete, which indexes are MSI (IRQ_INFO can describe
>>>> that)? We also already support MSI with vfio-pci, so a global flag for
>>>> the device advertising this still seems wrong. Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>> Since VFIO platform uses indexes for IRQ numbers so I think MSI(s)
>>> cannot be described using indexes.
>>
>> That would be news for vfio-pci which has been describing MSIs with
>> sub-indexes within indexes since vfio started.
>>
>>> In the patch set there is no difference between MSI and normal
>>> interrupt for VFIO_DEVICE_GET_IRQ_INFO.
>>
>> Then what exactly is a global device flag indicating? Does it indicate
>> all IRQs are MSI?
>
> No, it's not indicating that all are MSI.
> The rationale behind adding the flag to tell user-space that platform
> device supports MSI as well. As you mentioned recently added
> capabilities can help on this, I`ll go through that.
>
>>
>>> The patch set adds MSI(s), say as an extension, to the normal
>>> interrupts and handled accordingly.
>>
>> So we have both "normal" IRQs and MSIs? How does the user know which
>> indexes are which?
>
> With this patch set, I think this is missing and user space cannot
> know that particular index is MSI interrupt.
> For platform devices there is no such mechanism, like index and
> sub-indexes to differentiate between legacy, MSI or MSIX as it’s there
> in PCI.
Wht can't you use the count field (as per vfio_pci_get_irq_count())?
> I believe for a particular IRQ index if the flag
> VFIO_IRQ_INFO_NORESIZE is used then user space can know which IRQ
> index has MSI(s). Does it make sense?
I don't think it is the same semantics.
Thanks
Eric
> Suggestions on this would be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Vikas
>>
>>> Do you see this is a violation? If
>>
>> Seems pretty unclear and dubious use of a global device flag.
>>
>>> yes, then we`ll think of other possible ways to support MSI for the
>>> platform devices.
>>> Macro VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_MSI can be changed to any other name if it
>>> collides with an already supported vfio-pci or if not necessary, we
>>> can remove this flag.
>>
>> If nothing else you're using a global flag to describe a platform
>> device specific augmentation. We've recently added capabilities on the
>> device info return that would be more appropriate for this, but
>> fundamentally I don't understand why the irq info isn't sufficient.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alex
>>
