On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
<agustinv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
>
> On 2016-11-29 07:43, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>> <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Agustin,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:40:24PM -0500, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>
>>>> Can you chime in on Lorenzo's feedback and the discussion below?
>>>> It would be great if you can comment on the reason ACPI does things
>>>> in a certain way.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-11-25 06:40, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>>> >Hi Agustin,
>>>> >
>>>> >On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:15:48PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >[...]
>>>> >
>>>> >>> @@ -448,6 +449,7 @@ bool acpi_dev_resource_interrupt(struct
>>>> >>> acpi_resource *ares, int index,
>>>> >>> {
>>>> >>> struct acpi_resource_irq *irq;
>>>> >>> struct acpi_resource_extended_irq *ext_irq;
>>>> >>> + struct fwnode_handle *src;
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> switch (ares->type) {
>>>> >>> case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IRQ:
>>>> >>> @@ -460,7 +462,7 @@ bool acpi_dev_resource_interrupt(struct
>>>> >>> acpi_resource *ares, int index,
>>>> >>> acpi_dev_irqresource_disabled(res, 0);
>>>> >>> return false;
>>>> >>> }
>>>> >>> - acpi_dev_get_irqresource(res, irq->interrupts[index],
>>>> >>> + acpi_dev_get_irqresource(res, irq->interrupts[index],
>>>> >>> NULL,
>>>> >>> irq->triggering, irq->polarity,
>>>> >>> irq->sharable, true);
>>>> >>> break;
>>>> >>> @@ -470,7 +472,8 @@ bool acpi_dev_resource_interrupt(struct
>>>> >>> acpi_resource *ares, int index,
>>>> >>> acpi_dev_irqresource_disabled(res, 0);
>>>> >>> return false;
>>>> >>> }
>>>> >>> - acpi_dev_get_irqresource(res, ext_irq->interrupts[index],
>>>> >>> + src =
>>>> >>> acpi_get_irq_source_fwhandle(&ext_irq->resource_source);
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Is there a reason why we need to do the domain look-up here ?
>>>>
>>>> Because we need to pass the resource down to acpi_dev_get_irqresource
>>>> which does the mapping through acpi_register_irq/acpi_register_gsi.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I would like to understand if, by reshuffling the code (and by
>>>> >>returning
>>>> >>the resource_source to the calling code - somehow), it would be
>>>> >>possible
>>>> >>to just mirror what the OF code does in of_irq_get(), namely:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>(1) parse the irq entry -> of_irq_parse_one()
>>>> >>(2) look the domain up -> irq_find_host()
>>>> >>(3) create the mapping -> irq_create_of_mapping()
>>>> >>
>>>> >>You wrote the code already, I think it is just a matter of shuffling
>>>> >>it around (well, minus returning the resource_source to the caller
>>>> >>which is phandle equivalent in DT).
>>>>
>>>> This is one area in which DT and ACPI are fundamentally different. In DT
>>>> once the flattened blob is expanded the data is fixed. In ACPI the data
>>>> returned by a method can change. In reality most methods like CRS return
>>>> constants, but given that per-spec they are methods the interpreter has
>>>> to be involved, which makes it an expensive operation. I believe that is
>>>> the reason the resource parsing code in ACPI attempts all mappings
>>>> during
>>>> the bus scan. Rafael can you comment on this?
>>>>
>>>> One way to do what you suggest would be to defer IRQ mapping by, e.g.,
>>>> populating res->start with the HW IRQ number and res->end with the
>>>> fwnode.
>>>> That way we can avoid having to walk the resource buffer when a mapping
>>>> is needed. I don't think that approach would deviate much more from
>>>> the spec from what the current ahead-of-time mapping does, but it would
>>>> require more changes in the core code. An alternative would be to do
>>>> that only for resources that fail to map.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>You abstracted away (2) and (3) behind acpi_register_irq(), that
>>>> >>on anything than does not use ACPI_GENERIC_GSI is just glue code
>>>> >>to acpi_register_gsi().
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Also, it is not a question on this patch but I ask it here because it
>>>> >>is related. On ACPI you are doing the reverse of what is done in
>>>> >>DT in platform_get_irq():
>>>> >>
>>>> >>- get the resources already parsed -> platform_get_resource()
>>>> >>- if they are disabled -> acpi_irq_get()
>>>> >>
>>>> >>and I think the ordering is tied to my question above because
>>>> >>you carry out the domain look up in acpi_dev_resource_interrupt()
>>>> >>so that if for any reason it fails the corresponding resource
>>>> >>is disabled so that we try to get it again through acpi_irq_get().
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I suspect you did it this way to make sure:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>a) keep the current ACPI IRQ parsing interface changes to a mininum
>>>> >>b) avoid changing the behaviour on x86/ia64; in particular, calling
>>>> >> acpi_register_gsi() for the _same_ mapping (an IRQ that was already
>>>> >> registered at device creation resource parsing) multiple times can
>>>> >> trigger issues on x86/ia64
>>>>
>>>> You are correct about my reasons. I wanted to keep ACPI core code
>>>> changes
>>>> to a minimum, and I also needed to work within the current
>>>> implementation
>>>> which uses the pre-converted IRQ resources.
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I think that's a reasonable approach but I wanted to get these
>>>> >>clarifications, I do not think you are far from getting this
>>>> >>done but since it is a significant change I think it is worth
>>>> >>discussing the points I raised above because I think the DT code
>>>> >>sequence in of_irq_get() (1-2-3 above) is cleaner from an IRQ
>>>> >>layer perspective (instead of having the domain look-up buried
>>>> >>inside the ACPI IRQ resource parsing API).
>>>> >
>>>> >I had another look and to achieve the above one way of doing that is to
>>>> >implement acpi_irq_get() only for ACPI_GENERIC_GSI and stub it out for
>>>> >!ACPI_GENERIC_GSI (ie return an error code so that on !ACPI_GENERIC_GSI
>>>> >we would fall back to current solution for ACPI). Within acpi_irq_get()
>>>> >you can easily carry out the same steps (1->2->3) above in ACPI
>>>> >you have
>>>> >the code already there I think it is easy to change the
>>>> >acpi_irq_get_cb() interface to return a filled in struct irq_fwspec and
>>>> >the interface would become identical to of_irq_get() that is an
>>>> >advantage to maintain it from an IRQ maintainership perspective I
>>>> >think,
>>>> >that's my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I think I get what you mean. I'll take a stab at implementing
>>>> acpi_irq_get()
>>>> in the way you suggest.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >There is still a nagging snag though. When platform devices are
>>>> >created, core ACPI code parse the resources through:
>>>> >
>>>> >acpi_dev_get_resources()
>>>> >
>>>> >and we _have_ to have way to avoid initializing IRQ resources that
>>>> >have a dependency (ie there is a resource_source pointer that is valid
>>>> >in their descriptors) that's easy to do if we think that's the right
>>>> >thing to do and can hardly break current code (which ignores the
>>>> >resource_source altogether).
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather keep the core code as-is with regard to the ahead-of-time
>>>> conversion. Whether a resource source is available at the time of
>>>> the bus
>>>> scan should be transparent to the code in drivers/acpi/resource.c, and
>>>> we need the initialization as a disabled resource to signal the need
>>>> to retry anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly that's the nub. Your current code works, I am trying to
>>> make it more modular and similar to the DT/irqdomain IRQ look-up path,
>>> which has its advantages.
>>>
>>> There are two options IMHO:
>>>
>>> - always disable the resource if it has a resource_source dependency and
>>> defer
>>> its parsing to acpi_irq_get() (where you can easily implement steps
>>> 1-2-3 above).
>>> What I wanted to say is that, by disabling the resource if it has a
>>> resource_source dependency you can't break x86/ia64 (it is ignored at
>>> present - hopefully there is nothing that we are not aware of behind
>>> that choice). On x86/ia64 acpi_irq_get() would be an empty stub.
>>> This way you would keep the irqdomain look-up out of the ACPI resource
>>> parsing API, correct ?
>>> - keep code as-is
>>>
>>> Your point on _CRS being _current_ resource setting is perfectly valid
>>> so platform_get_resource() in platform_get_irq() must always take
>>> precedence over acpi_irq_get() (which should just apply to disabled
>>> resources), I am not sure that doing it the other way around is safe.
>>>
>>>> Rafael, do you have any other suggestions/feedback on how to go about
>>>> doing this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, comments very appreciated, these changes are not trivial and need
>>> agreement.
>>
>>
>> So I need more time.
>
>
> Please wait for V8 which will address some issues raised by Lorenzo.
>
>>
>> But basically, _CRS can't really change on the fly AFAICS. I'm not
>> even sure it is valid for it to change at all after the first
>> evaluation if _SRS/_PRS are not present.
>
>
> That's good to know and it opens more possibilities.
Actually, to me it follows from the very purpose of _CRS that, as long
as the device is enabled, it should be expected to return the same
data every time it is evaluated, unless _SRS is invoked in the
meantime. Otherwise, it would be possible for the device's resources
to change unexpectedly under a driver using it.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
