On Fri, Feb 23 2024 at 18:26, Tianyang Zhang wrote: > From: Baoqi Zhang <zhangbaoqi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > We have removed the fixed mapping between the 7A interrupt source > and the HT interrupt vector, and replaced it with a dynamically > allocated approach. This will be more conducive to fully utilizing > existing vectors to support more devices You are describing _WHAT_ the patch is doing, but you fail to explain the context and the _WHY_. > Signed-off-by: Baoqi Zhang <zhangbaoqi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Tianyang <zhangtianyang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Biao Dong <dongbiao@xxxxxxxxxxx> This Signed-off-by chain is wrong. You, Tianyang, are sending this, right? See https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin and the following chapters. > --- > drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-pic.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-pic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-pic.c > index 63db8e2172e0..86549356e76e 100644 > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-pic.c > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-pic.c > @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ > #define PIC_REG_IDX(irq_id) ((irq_id) / PIC_COUNT_PER_REG) > #define PIC_REG_BIT(irq_id) ((irq_id) % PIC_COUNT_PER_REG) > > +#define hwirq_to_bit(priv, hirq) (((priv)->table)[(hirq)]) Make this a static inline please. > static int nr_pics; > > struct pch_pic { > @@ -46,6 +48,8 @@ struct pch_pic { > u32 saved_vec_en[PIC_REG_COUNT]; > u32 saved_vec_pol[PIC_REG_COUNT]; > u32 saved_vec_edge[PIC_REG_COUNT]; > + u8 table[PIC_COUNT]; > + int inuse; > }; > > static struct pch_pic *pch_pic_priv[MAX_IO_PICS]; > @@ -80,45 +84,47 @@ static void pch_pic_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d) > { > struct pch_pic *priv = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); > > - pch_pic_bitset(priv, PCH_PIC_MASK, d->hwirq); > + pch_pic_bitset(priv, PCH_PIC_MASK, hwirq_to_bit(priv, d->hwirq)); > irq_chip_mask_parent(d); > } > > static void pch_pic_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d) > { > + int bit = hwirq_to_bit(priv, d->hwirq); > struct pch_pic *priv = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); How does this even compile? > > - writel(BIT(PIC_REG_BIT(d->hwirq)), > - priv->base + PCH_PIC_CLR + PIC_REG_IDX(d->hwirq) * 4); > + writel(BIT(PIC_REG_BIT(bit)), > + priv->base + PCH_PIC_CLR + PIC_REG_IDX(bit) * 4); > > irq_chip_unmask_parent(d); > - pch_pic_bitclr(priv, PCH_PIC_MASK, d->hwirq); > + pch_pic_bitclr(priv, PCH_PIC_MASK, bit); > } > > static int pch_pic_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type) > { > + int bit = hwirq_to_bit(priv, d->hwirq); > struct pch_pic *priv = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); And this? By chance because you used a macro instead of an inline function. But it's still incorrect and wrong. > @@ -157,6 +164,7 @@ static int pch_pic_domain_translate(struct irq_domain *d, > unsigned long *hwirq, > unsigned int *type) > { > + int i; > struct pch_pic *priv = d->host_data; > struct device_node *of_node = to_of_node(fwspec->fwnode); Please see: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#variable-declarations > @@ -171,6 +179,20 @@ static int pch_pic_domain_translate(struct irq_domain *d, > return -EINVAL; > > *hwirq = fwspec->param[0] - priv->gsi_base; > + > + raw_spin_lock(&priv->pic_lock); This was clearly never tested with lockdep enabled. Why? Because lockdep would have told you that this takes the spinlock with interrupts enabled while it is taken in the mask()/unmask() callbacks from hard interrupt context. > + for (i = 0; i < priv->inuse; i++) { > + if (priv->table[i] == *hwirq) { > + *hwirq = i; > + break; > + } > + } > + if (i == priv->inuse && priv->inuse < PIC_COUNT) { > + priv->table[priv->inuse] = *hwirq; > + *hwirq = priv->inuse++; > + } So in case that priv->inuse == PIC_COUNT this does not set hwirq and returns with bogus values. > + raw_spin_unlock(&priv->pic_lock); > + > @@ -294,6 +320,10 @@ static int pch_pic_init(phys_addr_t addr, unsigned long size, int vec_base, > if (!priv->base) > goto free_priv; > > + priv->inuse = 0; > + for (i = 0; i < PIC_COUNT; i++) > + priv->table[i] = -1; table is an array of u8. So how does -1 make sense? Even if it would make sense, then you can't ever have 256 interrupts in use because the truncated -1 is equivalent to hwirq 255. Thanks, tglx
