On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 9:50 AM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi, Huacai
>
> 在 2024/8/8 下午4:03, Huacai Chen 写道:
> > Hi, Tianyang,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:52 PM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi, Thomas
> >>
> >> Thank you for your feedback.
> >>
> >> 在 2024/8/8 上午6:01, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
> >>
> >>>> + guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&loongarch_avec.lock);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
> >>>> + d = irq_domain_get_irq_data(domain, virq + i);
> >>>> + if (d) {
> >>>> + clear_free_vector(d);
> >>>> + irq_domain_reset_irq_data(d);
> >>>> +
> >>> Stray newline, but the more important question is what kfree()'s 'd'?
> >>>
> >>> AFAICT, nothing. So that's a memory leak, no?
> >> With my understand , 'd' as 'struct irq_data' can be free at public
> >> irqdomain process, and really miss a kfree targeting 'struct chip_data'
> >>>> +static int __init avecintc_init(struct irq_domain *parent)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + parent_irq = irq_create_mapping(parent, INT_AVEC);
> >>>> + if (!parent_irq) {
> >>>> + pr_err("Failed to mapping hwirq\n");
> >>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >>>> + goto out_remove_domain;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(parent_irq, avecintc_irq_dispatch, NULL);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + ret = irq_matrix_init();
> >>>> + if (ret < 0) {
> >>>> + pr_err("Failed to init irq matrix\n");
> >>>> + goto out_remove_domain;
> >>> Which still leaves the disfunct chained handler installed and the
> >>> mapping intact.
> >> There is indeed a problem here, but we have not found a similar approach
> >> for reference.
> >>
> >> Is it reasonable to replace here with handle_bad_irq in case of failure?
> >> or is there any other more suitable way. We hope you can give us some
> >> suggestions, thank you very much
> > Maybe we can move irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(parent_irq,
> > avecintc_irq_dispatch, NULL) after the checking of irq_matrix_init().
> >
> > Huacai
> I think is a good idea~~
Again, you can download patches from here as V9:
https://github.com/chenhuacai/linux/commits/loongarch-next
Huacai
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>> + value = iocsr_read64(LOONGARCH_IOCSR_MISC_FUNC);
> >>>> + value |= IOCSR_MISC_FUNC_AVEC_EN;
> >>>> + iocsr_write64(value, LOONGARCH_IOCSR_MISC_FUNC);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +out_remove_domain:
> >>>> + irq_domain_remove(loongarch_avec.domain);
> >>>> +out_free_handle:
> >>>> + irq_domain_free_fwnode(loongarch_avec.fwnode);
> >>>> +out:
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int __init pch_msi_parse_madt(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> >>>> + const unsigned long end)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct acpi_madt_msi_pic *pchmsi_entry = (struct acpi_madt_msi_pic *)header;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + msi_base_addr = pchmsi_entry->msg_address - AVEC_MSG_OFFSET;
> >>> What validates that msi_base_addr has none of the lower 16 bits set, as
> >>> they are required to be zero to make MSI message composing work, right?
> >> This operation originates from some hardware designs.
> >>
> >> In 3C6000, either eiointc or avecintc can be the parent controller for
> >> MSI interrupts and these two controllers have different MSI msg address.
> >>
> >> In our platform design scheme, we fix avec-msg-address to the address of
> >> (eiointc-msg-address - 0x100000). Therefore, here we need to subtract
> >> AVEC_MSG_OFFSET from the msg_address obtained by MCFG
> >>
> >> The main purpose of the design that users of 3C6000 can freely choose
> >> the version of the Linux kernel that supports loongarch (regardless of
> >> whether AVEC is supported or not) without having to change the firmware
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks again
> >>
> >> Tianyang
> >>
>
>
