On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 1:54 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 21:12:46 +0000,
> >
> > Ugh. pci_root_bus_fwnode() is another callback to find the
> > irq_domain. Only one call, from pci_host_bridge_msi_domain(), which
> > itself is only called from pci_set_bus_msi_domain(). This feels like
> > another case where we could simplify things by having the host bridge
> > driver figure out the irq_domain explicitly when it creates the
> > pci_host_bridge. It seems like that's where we have the most
> > information about how to find the irq_domain.
>
> Urgh. This is a perfect copy paste of the x86 horror, warts and all.
> I can't say I'm thrilled (another way to say "Gawd, Noes! Never!").
>
> One thing I am sure of is that I do not want to add more custom
> indirection to build the MSI topology. We barely got rid of the
> msi_controller structure, and this is the same thing by another
> name. Probably worse, actually.
>
> In this case, I don't see the point in going via a fwnode indirection
> given that there is no firmware tables the first place.
>
> As for finding the irq domain from the host bridge, that's not doable
> in most cases on arm64, as it is pretty likely that the host bridge
> knows nothing about MSIs when they are implemented in the GIC (see my
> recent msi_controller removal series that has a few patches about
> that).
>
> Having an optional callback to host bridges to obtain the MSI domain
> may be possible in some cases though (there might be a chicken/egg
> problem for some drivers though...).
I would expect that the host bridge driver can find the MSI domain
at probe time and just add a pointer into the pci_host_bridge
structure.
Arnd
