czw., 8 cze 2023 o 00:27 Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
napisał(a):
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:22:12 +0200
> Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can we drop the NTFY and just use VFIO_PCI_ACPI_IRQ_INDEX?
> > >
> > > ACPI_IRQ at first glance could be confused with SCI, which is e.g.
> > > registered as "acpi" irq seen in /proc/interrupts, maybe it is worth
> > > keeping NTFY here to emphasise the "Notify" part?
> >
> > Please let me know if you prefer VFIO_PCI_ACPI_IRQ_INDEX or
> > VFIO_PCI_ACPI_NTFY_IRQ_INDEX taking into account the above.
>
> This is a device level ACPI interrupt, so it doesn't seem like it would
> be confused with SCI. What other ACPI related interrupts would a
> device have? I'm still partial to dropping the NTFY but if you're
> attached to it, let's not abbreviate it, make it NOTIFY and do the same
> for function names.
Ok, I will use VFIO_PCI_ACPI_IRQ_INDEX then.
>
> ...
> > > > > + } else if (flags & VFIO_IRQ_SET_DATA_BOOL) {
> > > > > + u32 notification_val;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!count)
> > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + notification_val = *(u32 *)data;
> > > >
> > > > DATA_BOOL is defined as a u8, and of course also as a bool, so we
> > > > expect only zero/non-zero. I think a valid interpretation would be any
> > > > non-zero value generates a device check notification value.
> > >
> > > Maybe it would be helpful and ease testing if we could use u8 as a
> > > notification value placeholder so it would be more flexible?
> > > Notification values from 0x80 to 0xBF are device-specific, 0xC0 and
> > > above are reserved for definition by hardware vendors for hardware
> > > specific notifications and BTW in practice I didn't see notification
> > > values that do not fit in u8 but even if exist we can limit to u8 and
> > > gain some flexibility anyway. Please let me know what you think.
> >
> > Does the above seem ok for you?
>
> The data type is only a u8 for practicality, it's still labeled as a
> bool which suggests it's interpreted as either zero or non-zero. We
> also need to reconcile DATA_NONE, which should trigger the interrupt,
> but with an implicit notification value. I see the utility in what
> you're proposing, but it logically implies an extension of the SET_IRQS
> ioctl for a new data type which has hardly any practical value. Thanks,
Ok I will generate device check notification value as you earlier suggested.
Thank you,
Grzegorz
