On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 16:23:26 +0100,
Frank Li <frank.li@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 3:03 AM
> > To: Frank Li <frank.li@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: jdmason@xxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kw@xxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Peng Fan
> > <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>; Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@xxxxxxx>;
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; festevam@xxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx <linux-
> > imx@xxxxxxx>; kishon@xxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx;
> > ntb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] irqchip: imx mu worked as msi
> > controller
> >
> > Caution: EXT Email
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 22:48:32 +0100,
> > Frank Li <frank.li@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > +static void imx_mu_msi_irq_handler(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct imx_mu_msi *msi_data =
> > irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
> > > > > > > + u32 status;
> > > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + status = imx_mu_read(msi_data, msi_data->cfg-
> > > > >xSR[IMX_MU_RSR]);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + chained_irq_enter(irq_desc_get_chip(desc), desc);
> > > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < IMX_MU_CHANS; i++) {
> > > > > > > + if (status & IMX_MU_xSR_RFn(msi_data->cfg->type, i)) {
> > > > > > > + imx_mu_read(msi_data, msi_data->cfg->xRR + i * 4);
> > > > > > > + generic_handle_domain_irq(msi_data->parent, i);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why the parent? You must start at the top of the hierarchy.
> > >
> > > [Frank Li] Do you means that should be msi_data->msi_domain instead
> > > of msi_data->parent?
> >
> > Indeed. you must *not* bypass the hierarchy, and the top level of the
> > hierarchy has to implement whatever is required by the interrupt flow.
> >
>
> [Frank Li] I see, just want to confirm msi_data->msi_domain should
> be correct here? It should be leaf of irq hierarchy tree.
Yes.
>
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > + chained_irq_exit(irq_desc_get_chip(desc), desc);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your MSIs are a chained interrupt, why do you even provide an
> > > > > > affinity setting callback?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Frank Li] it will be crash if no affinity setting callback.
> > > >
> > > > Then you have to fix your driver.
> > >
> > > [Frank Li] After debug, msi_domain_set_affinity() have not did null check
> > for (parent->chip->irq_set_affinity).
> > > I think impact by using dummy set_affinity is minimized.
> > >
> > > int msi_domain_set_affinity(struct irq_data *irq_data,
> > > const struct cpumask *mask, bool force)
> > > {
> > > struct irq_data *parent = irq_data->parent_data;
> > > struct msi_msg msg[2] = { [1] = { }, };
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > ret = parent->chip->irq_set_affinity(parent, mask, force);
> > > if (ret >= 0 && ret != IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE) {
> > > BUG_ON(irq_chip_compose_msi_msg(irq_data, msg));
> > > msi_check_level(irq_data->domain, msg);
> > > irq_chip_write_msi_msg(irq_data, msg);
> > > }
> > >
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> >
> > No. Changing the affinity of an interrupt must not affect the affinity
> > of another. Given that this is a chained handler, you *cannot* satisfy
> > this requirement. So you can't change the affinity at all.
> >
>
> [Frank Li] I understand affinity can't be changed.
> But system use set affinity to write msi msg.
>
> The call stack as
> [ 25.508229] epf_ntb_write_msi_msg+0x78/0x90
> [ 25.512512] platform_msi_write_msg+0x2c/0x38
> [ 25.516882] msi_domain_set_affinity+0xb0/0xc0
> [ 25.521330] irq_do_set_affinity+0x174/0x220
> [ 25.525604] irq_setup_affinity+0xe0/0x188
> [ 25.529713] irq_startup+0x88/0x160
> [ 25.533214] __setup_irq+0x6c8/0x768
>
> I have not found good place to hook a function to write msi msg.
It is called at MSI activation time (msi_domain_activate).
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
