On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 29/07/15 09:52, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi Ley,
> >>
> >> On 28/07/15 11:45, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> >>> This patch adds Altera PCIe MSI driver. This soft IP supports configurable
> >>> number of vectors, which is a dts parameter.
> >>
> >> Can't you read this configuration from the HW?
> > No, we can't read from HW.
>
> Ah, that's a shame. Specially on HW that is configurable by design.
>
> [...]
>
> >>> +
> >>> + irq = irq_find_mapping(msi->msi_domain->parent, offset);
> >>
> >> This would tend to indicate that you don't really need to store the
> >> msi_domain pointer, but the inner_domain pointer instead.
> > Will store the inner_domain pointer. But, I think we still need
> > msi_domain for irq_domain_remove.
> > Or do we have any way to retrieve msi_domain from inner_domain?
>
> Do you have any case where you remove the domains, aside from the
> obvious error cases?
Yes, if there is error in _probe().
> [...]
>
> >>> +
> >>> +static struct msi_domain_info altera_msi_domain_info = {
> >>> + .flags = (MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_DOM_OPS | MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS),
> >>
> >> So you don't support MSIX? That's a bit weird.
> > Yes, this MSI IP doesn't support it.
>
> This is not really a function of the MSI IP, but of the PCI device. In
> your case, this is just a set of doorbells, so I hardly see what would
> prevent MSI-X to be supported. Multi-MSI, I can see why.
Yes, you are right. Will add MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSIX flag here.
>
> [...]
>
> >>> +static int altera_msi_set_affinity(struct irq_data *irq_data,
> >>> + const struct cpumask *mask, bool force)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return irq_set_affinity(irq_data->hwirq, mask);
> >>
> >> There is no way this can be right. irq_data->hwirq can *never* be passed
> >> as a Linux IRQ. This really should be the IRQ to the GIC.
> >>
> >> Which raises another issue: as you only have a single interrupt to the
> >> GIC, changing the affinity of a single MSI is going to affect all the
> >> other MSIs as well. This doesn't seem like a desirable behaviour.
> > Do we must provide '.irq_set_affinity" callback to msi domain? I have
> > tried set it to NULL,
> > but kernel got the NULL pointer deference error from msi_domain_set_affinity().
> > Recently, I saw this new patch for pci-tegra.c from [1], it doesn't
> > set the ".irq_set_affinity".
> > Just wonder how it can work.
> >
> > Do you have any recommendation way for this?
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/commit/drivers/pci/host?h=irq/gsi-irq-domain-v2&id=17c22fc4e60e6ad54c7e3b73868cbc057360fa63
>
> Please realize that I *never* tested this patch (I don't think I ever
> posted it officially, I just keep here for convenience), and I wouldn't
> take it as a reference.
>
> When it comes to msi_domain_set_affinity issue, this look more like an
> oversight. I'll cook a patch for that.
>
> Anyway, whichever way you want to do it, you need to fix this. You could
> always return -EINVAL in the meantime,
Will add -EINVAL for now.
Thanks for reviewing.
Regards
Ley Foon
--
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
