On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:56:10PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
>> On 23.06.17 19:04:36, Geetha sowjanya wrote:
>> > From: Geetha Sowjanya <geethasowjanya.akula@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Cavium ThunderX2 SMMU doesn't support MSI and also doesn't have unique irq
>> > lines for gerror, eventq and cmdq-sync.
>> >
>> > New named irq "combined" is set as a errata workaround, which allows to
>> > share the irq line by register single irq handler for all the interrupts.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Geetha sowjanya <gakula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt | 1 +
>> > .../devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu-v3.txt | 6 +
>> > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 57 ++++++++---
>> > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 100 ++++++++++++++-----
>> > 4 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>>
>> > +static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> > +{
>> > + int ret, irq;
>> > + u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
>> > +
>> > + /* Disable IRQs first */
>> > + ret = arm_smmu_write_reg_sync(smmu, 0, ARM_SMMU_IRQ_CTRL,
>> > + ARM_SMMU_IRQ_CTRLACK);
>> > + if (ret) {
>> > + dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to disable irqs\n");
>> > + return ret;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + irq = smmu->combined_irq;
>> > + if (irq) {
>> > + /*
>> > + * Cavium ThunderX2 implementation doesn't not support unique
>> > + * irq lines. Use single irq line for all the SMMUv3 interrupts.
>> > + */
>> > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(smmu->dev, irq,
>> > + arm_smmu_combined_irq_handler,
>> > + arm_smmu_combined_irq_thread,
>> > + IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>
>> Without the IRQF_SHARED flag set I see the following on a dual node
>> system now:
Node1 SMMU interrupts are programmed wrong in the firmware.
Node 0 and Node1 SMMU do not share interrupts.
I have verified the patch on dual node with correct interrupt numbers
programmed in firmware.
Thanks,
Geetha.
>
> We asked about that before:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=149803613513068&w=2
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=149803744713475&w=2
>
> and Geetha didn't reply, but the next version of the patch dropped the flag.
> Is it just that firmware is misprogramming something here, or something
> more fundamental?
>
> Will
--
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
