On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 04:27:11PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Grant Likely,
>
> Thanks for your feedback! Some comments below.
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 22:33:10 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Actually, I'm going to disagree on this one and say NAK. I don't think
> > it is a good idea to create a completely separate registry of msi_chips
> > for binding to dt nodes. I think it would be better to include the
> > msi_chip pointer directly into the irq_domain which has to be there
> > anyway. It then becomes another feature for irq controllers if it can
> > support doing MSI.
>
> The problem that this patch tries to solve is how can the PCIe driver
> work get a pointer to the msi_chip structure from the DT device node
> pointed to by the 'msi-parent' property. I.e, we have:
>
> interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
>
> mpic {
> reg = <...>;
> compatible = "...";
> interrupt-controller;
> msi-controller;
> };
>
> pcie-controller {
> msi-parent = <&mpic>;
> };
>
> The 'mpic' driver registers two irq_domains, one for the "normal"
> interrupts, and one for the MSI interrupts. Both irq_domain cannot be
> associated to the same &mpic node, or the irq_domain lookup for
> interrupt-parent and msi-parent is going to be confused.
>
> In the very first version of this patch set, I was using two separate
> DT device nodes to avoid this problem:
>
> interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
>
> interrupt-controller {
> reg = <...>;
> compatible = "...";
>
> mpic {
> interrupt-controller;
> };
>
> msi {
> msi-controller;
> };
> };
>
> pcie-controller {
> msi-parent = <&msi>;
> };
>
> This way, each of the two irq_domain was associated to a distinct DT
> device node, and everything was working fine. But during the review, I
> was pointed by Arnd that it wasn't the proper way of describing the
> interrupt controller, and that there should be only one DT device node
> having both the interrupt-controller and msi-controller roles.
>
> So what is your suggestion to allow the PCIe controller to retrieve the
> correct irq_domain if we have only one DT node for the IRQ controller
> that registers two irq_domains ?
If I understand correctly, Grant isn't objecting to the introduction of
the lookup function, but rather its implementation. You could add a
pointer to a struct msi_chip within struct irq_domain and then iterate
over all irq_domain instances (see irq_find_host()) and find one which
has the correct device_node pointer and the msi_chip pointer set.
So I think that pretty much boils down to setting the (new) .msi_chip
field of armada_370_xp_msi_domain to the newly allocated MSI chip in
armada_370_xp_msi_init() and modify the lookup function to use the
irq_domain_list instead of the list of of_pci_msi_chip_list(). And a
whole lot of the infrastructure code can go away because it's already
there for irq_domain.
The good thing about it is that it couples the MSI chip more strongly
with its associated IRQ domain. And as a bonus we get to omit the list
and of_node fields from struct msi_chip. =)
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpQFFwvnClvR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
