On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 13:17:00 +0000,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
If the various irqchips can tell the core code whether they want
things to be masked at the PCI level or at the irqchip level, this
would be a move in the right direction. For the GIC, I'd definitely
want things masked locally.
What I'd like to get rid off is the double masking, as I agree it is
on the "pretty dumb" side of things.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
