On 2014/11/12 1:53, Jiang Liu wrote:
> Hi Bjorn, Yijing and Thomas,
> Recently Yijing is trying to kill some weak functions in
> drivers/pci/msi.c by using msi_chip mechanism. And it inspired me
> that we could go one step further to kill those weak functions
> at all and move common PCI MSI code into PCI core by using the
> new hierarch irqdomain framework.
> The way to achieve the goal is:
> 1) arch code creates irqdomain for PCI MSI controllers. By default,
> there's only one global PCI MSI irqdomain. But there's may be multiple
> for some architecture like x86. So arch also need to implement a weak
> function (I know you don't like weak functions):
> struct irq_domain *arch_get_pci_msi_irq_domain(struct pci_dev *);
Arm also may have multiple msi_chips/msi irq domains, currently, corresponding msi_chip is stored
in bus->msi. But it's not a good idea, I'm refactoring generic pci host bridge, we could
save it in generic pci_host_bridge.
>
> 2) replace
> arch_setup_msi_irqs()/arch_setup_msi_irqs()/arch_teardown_msi_irqs()/arch_teardown_msi_irq()
> with
> irq_domain interfaces.
Agree.
>
> 3) kill arch_msi_mask_irq()/arch_msi_mask_irq() by directly setting
> irq_chip.irq_mask()/irq_unmask().
arch_msi_mask_irq() is only called in pci_msi_shutdown, in this case,
the msi mask status will not be overrode, so we can restore it later.
If use irq_chip.irq_mask(), we need another place to save the mask status.
>
> 4) we could also find a way to kill arch_restore_msi_irqs() by using
> new irqdomain interfaces.
My personal opinion, I think place arch_retore_msi_irqs() stuffs in irq_chip is better. :)
>
> For arch code to support the new MSI, it needs to implement callbacks in
> msi_domain_ops and irq_chip. All other PCI MSI code becomes common
> and will be moved into pci/msi.c. Proposed interfaces as below:
>
> struct irq_chip {
> void (*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data,
> struct msi_msg *msg);
> };
>
> struct msi_domain_ops {
> void (*calc_hwirq)(struct msi_domain_info *info, void *arg,
> struct msi_desc *desc);
> irq_hw_number_t (*get_hwirq)(struct msi_domain_info *info, void
> *arg);
> int (*msi_init)(struct irq_domain *domain, struct
> msi_domain_info *info,
> unsigned int virq, irq_hw_number_t hwirq, void
> *arg);
> void (*msi_free)(struct irq_domain *domain,
> struct msi_domain_info *info, unsigned int virq);
> };
>
> struct msi_domain_info {
> struct msi_domain_ops *ops;
> struct irq_chip *chip;
> void *data;
> };
>
> struct irq_domain *msi_create_irq_domain(struct device_node *of_node,
> struct msi_domain_info *info,
> struct irq_domain *parent);
>
> So, what's your thoughts about the proposal? If now objection, I may
> send out a draft version for x86 within about one week:)
I think the proposal is better than original msi_chip framework.
I like this idea. :)
Thanks!
Yijing.
> Thanks!
> Gerry
>
> .
>
--
Thanks!
Yijing
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
