[+cc Thomas for real, sorry]
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:25:58PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Thomas, irq_get_trigger_type() question below]
>
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:55:43AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > On 3/4/2016 1:09 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:29:01PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > >> On 3/3/2016 10:12 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > >>> On 3/3/2016 10:10 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> > >> From 6cc33747feb469fe4da2088f34e2c875a36f58f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > >> From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:14:22 -0500
> > >> Subject: [PATCH] acpi,pci,irq: account for early penalty assignment
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > >> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> > >> index fa28635..09eea42 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>
> > >> static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> > >> {
> > >> - struct irq_penalty_info *irq_info;
> > >> -
> > >> if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
> > >> return acpi_irq_isa_penalty[irq];
> > >>
> > >> - list_for_each_entry(irq_info, &acpi_irq_penalty_list, node) {
> > >> - if (irq_info->irq == irq)
> > >> - return irq_info->penalty;
> > >> - }
> > >> + if (irq == sci_irq)
> > >> + return sci_irq_penalty;
> > >>
> > >> - return 0;
> > >> + return acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> > >
> > > I think there are two issues here that should be teased apart a bit
> > > more:
> > >
> > > 1) Trigger settings: If the IRQ is configured as anything other than
> > > level-triggered, active-low, we can't use it at all for a PCI
> > > interrupt, and we should return an "infinite" penalty. We currently
> > > increase the penalty for the SCI IRQ if it's not level/low, but
> > > doesn't it apply to *all* IRQs, not just the SCI IRQ?
> >
> > It makes sense for SCI as it is Intel specific.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this cannot be done in an arch independent way. Of course,
> > ARM had to implement its own thing. While level-triggered, active-low is
> > good for intel world, it is not for the ARM world. ARM uses active-high
> > level triggered.
>
> I'm confused. I don't think SCI is Intel-specific. Per PCI Spec
> r3.0, sec 2.2.6, PCI interrupts are level-sensitive, asserted low.
> Per ACPI Spec v3.0, sec 2.1, the SCI is an "active, low, shareable,
> level interrupt".
>
> Are you saying SCI is active-high on ARM? If so, I don't think that's
> necessarily a huge problem, although we'd have to audit the ACPI code
> to make sure we handle it correctly.
>
> The point here is that a PCI Interrupt Link can only use an IRQ that
> is level-triggered, active low. If an IRQ is already set to any other
> state, whether for an ISA device or for an active-high SCI, we can't
> use it for a PCI Interrupt Link.
>
> It'd be nice if there were a generic way we could figure out what the
> trigger mode of an IRQ is. I was hoping can_request_irq() was that
> way, but I don't think it is, because it only looks at IRQF_SHARED,
> not at IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW.
>
> Maybe irq_get_trigger_type() is what we want?
>
> > > It looks like we do something similar in the pcibios_lookup_irq()
> > > loop that uses can_request_irq(). If we used can_request_irq() in
> > > pci_link.c, would that mean we could get rid of the SCI
> > > trigger/polarity stuff and just keep track of the SCI IRQ? I don't
> > > know whether the SCI IRQ is hooked into whatever can_request_irq()
> > > uses, but it seems like it *should* be.
> >
> > Sorry, you lost me here. We are only tracking sci_irq and sci_penalty.
> > Do you want to add an additional check here? something like this?
> >
> > if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
> > - polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
> > + polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW) &&
> > + !can_request_irq(irq, IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW))
>
> I'm saying:
>
> - If the IRQ trigger type is anything other than level/low, reject
> this IRQ, and
>
> - If this IRQ is the SCI IRQ, penalize the IRQ as though we have a
> PCI device already using it.
>
> > > If we adopt the idea that we compute the penalties on the fly in
> > > acpi_irq_get_penalty(), I don't think we need acpi_irq_penalty_init()
> > > any more. It does basically the same thing acpi_irq_get_penalty()
> > > would do, and it's confusing to do it twice.
> >
> > Agreed, I was going to take it out. I didn't want to get on it yet. Emptied
> > the function now.
>
> You might be able to do this incrementally, in several patches, and
> I'd prefer that if it's possible. It's much easier to review patches
> if each one is as small as possible and changes only one thing at a
> time.
>
> > >> @@ -900,6 +916,7 @@ void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
> > >> if (irq < 0)
> > >> return;
> > >>
> > >> + sci_irq = irq;
> > >
> > > Possibly acpi_penalize_sci_irq() itself could go away, since all we
> > > really need is the SCI IRQ, and we might be able to just use
> > > acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt (I'm not 100% sure sci_interrupt is
> > > identical to a Linux IRQ number; we'd have to check that).
> >
> > Is SCI IRQ exclusive in general? We are now keeping track of SCI IRQ and
> > adding penalty when irq matches sci_irq in get_penalty function.
> >
> > How do we make sci_irq_penalty and acpi_penalize_sci_irq disappear?
>
> I don't think the SCI IRQ needs to be exclusive. The ACPI spec says
> it should be sharable, as long as the other devices use a compatible
> trigger mode (level/low per spec).
>
> If we know the SCI IRQ, we don't need sci_irq_penalty or
> acpi_penalize_sci_irq() because we can penalize an IRQ with the
> PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING, something like this:
>
> static int pci_compatible_trigger(int irq)
> {
> int type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq);
>
> return (type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW || type == IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> }
>
> static unsigned int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> {
> unsigned int penalty = 0;
>
> if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt)
> penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>
> penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> return penalty;
> }
>
> static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> {
> unsigned int best = ~0;
> ...
>
> for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
> candidate = link->irq.possible[i];
> if (!pci_compatible_trigger(candidate))
> continue;
>
> penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(candidate);
> if (penalty < best) {
> irq = candidate;
> best = penalty;
> }
> }
> ...
> }
>
> This looks racy, because we test irq_get_trigger_type() without any
> kind of locking, and later acpi_register_gsi() calls
> irq_create_fwspec_mapping(), which looks like it sets the new trigger
> type. But I don't know how to fix that.
>
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
