On Thu, Nov 24 2022 at 13:04, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:39:36 +0000,
>> static void pci_mask_msi(struct irq_data *data)
>> {
>> struct msi_desc *desc = irq_data_get_msi_desc(data);
>>
>> pci_msi_mask(desc, BIT(data->irq - desc->irq));
>> + cond_mask_parent(data);
>
> I find this a bit odd. If anything, I'd rather drop the masking at the
> PCI level and keep it local to the interrupt controller, because this
> is likely to be more universal than the equivalent PCI operation
> (think multi-MSI, for example, which cannot masks individual MSIs).
>
> Another thing is that the static key is a global state. Nothing says
> that masking one way or the other is a universal thing, specially when
> you have multiple interrupt controllers dealing with MSIs in different
> ways. For example, GICv3 can use both the ITS and the GICv3-MBI frame
> at the same time for different PCI RC. OK, they happen to deal with
> MSIs in the same way, but you hopefully get my point.
I'm fine with dropping that. I did this because basically all of the
various ARM PCI/MSI domain implementation have a copy of the same
functions. Some of them have pointlessly the wrong order because copy &
pasta is so wonderful....
So the alternative solution is to provide _ONE_ set of correct callbacks
and let the domain initialization code override the irq chip callbacks
of the default PCI/MSI template.
Thanks,
tglx
