Hi Thomas,
On 12/11/14 14:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> This patch introduces two optionnal fields to the msi_chip structure:
>> - a pointer to an irq domain, describing the MSI domain associated
>> with this msi_chip. To be populated with msi_create_irq_domain.
>> - a domain_alloc_irqs() callback that has the same purpose as
>> arch_setup_msi_irqs(), with the above domain as an additional
>> parameter.
>>
>> If both of these fields are non-NULL, then domain_alloc_irqs() is
>> called, bypassing the setup_irq callback. This allows the MSI driver
>> to use the domain stacking feature without mandating core support in
>> the architecture.
>
> I'd rather have the callback in the irqdomain itself. Along with a
> callback to free the interrupts.
>
> AFAICT is msi_chip more or less a wrapper around the actual MSI irq
> domain. So we rather move towards assigning irqdomain to the pci bus
> and get rid of msi_chip instead of adding another level of obscure
> indirection through msi_chip.
I can see that putting the irq domain at the bus level makes a lot of
sense (assuming nobody tries to have multiple MSI controllers per bus...).
So I'm starting with something like this:
diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
index 640a1ec..07e50fc 100644
--- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h
+++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct irq_domain;
struct of_device_id;
struct irq_chip;
struct irq_data;
+struct device;
/* Number of irqs reserved for a legacy isa controller */
#define NUM_ISA_INTERRUPTS 16
@@ -76,6 +77,10 @@ struct irq_domain_ops {
unsigned int nr_irqs);
void (*activate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data);
void (*deactivate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data);
+ int (*prepare_alloc_irqs)(struct irq_domain *d, struct device *dev,
+ unsigned int nr_irqs, int type);
+ int (*cleanup_free_irqs)(struct irq_domain *d, struct device *dev,
+ unsigned int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs);
#endif
};
How do you see this behaving? At the moment, I have the "prepare" callback
directly calling into pci_msi_domain_alloc_irqs() so that the irqs get
created, but I have the nagging feeling that it's not what you want... ;-)
The main issue I can see is that if more than one domain in the stack
implements that, who gets to call pci_msi_domain_alloc_irqs?
If we try to decouple those two, there is a problem with the creation of
the intermediate structure (the irq_alloc_info that's in Jiang's patches),
as this is a arch/driver/whatever specific structure.
For reference, I've pushed out my current branch (very much a work in
progress):
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/log/?h=irq/branch-from-hell
The commits related to this discussion are:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/commit/?h=irq/branch-from-hell&id=56ea48e6389fe461cb3ddf01e19afcdcd8f12f66
and
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/commit/?h=irq/branch-from-hell&id=855ab8b937967854dd070de2d0aaa07639e19526
as well as the code making use of that:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/tree/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c?h=irq/branch-from-hell&id=9f8ed988c2411831b7512006642e484c151e9a7a#n1184
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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
