Hi Mark,
Às 9:44 AM de 5/21/2017, Marc Zyngier escreveu:
> On Mon, May 15 2017 at 06:03:41 PM, Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This patch adds the new interrupt api to pcie-designware, keeping the old
>> one. Although the old API is still available, pcie-designware initiates with
>> the new one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> changes v1->v2:
>> - Now there's no config to toggle between the 2 APIs, so pcie-designware
>> initiaties wih the new one by default
>> - Using lower_32_bits / upper_32_bits
>> - Instead of mutex, now using spinlocks
>> - Instead of always reading PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE, now we use an internal
>> variable
>> - dw_pcie_irq_domain_alloc() was updated to enable Multi-MSI
>> - using irq_domain_create_linear() instead of irq_domain_add_linear()
>>
>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 15 ++
>> 2 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
>> index 28ed32b..78ce002 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>> * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> */
>>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>> #include <linux/of_pci.h>
>> @@ -53,6 +54,28 @@ static struct irq_chip dw_msi_irq_chip = {
>> .irq_unmask = pci_msi_unmask_irq,
>> };
>>
>> +static void dw_msi_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d) {
>> + pci_msi_mask_irq(d);
>> + irq_chip_mask_parent(d);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void dw_msi_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d) {
>> + pci_msi_unmask_irq(d);
>> + irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct irq_chip dw_pcie_msi_irq_chip = {
>> + .name = "PCI-MSI",
>> + .irq_mask = dw_msi_mask_irq,
>> + .irq_unmask = dw_msi_unmask_irq,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct msi_domain_info dw_pcie_msi_domain_info = {
>> + .flags = (MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_DOM_OPS | MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS |
>> + MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSIX),
>
> How is Multi-MSI supported if you don't pass the MSI_FLAG_MULTI_PCI_MSI
> flag?
Well spoted, it was lost in the merge.
>
>> + .chip = &dw_pcie_msi_irq_chip,
>> +};
>> +
>> /* MSI int handler */
>> irqreturn_t dw_handle_msi_irq(struct pcie_port *pp)
>> {
>> @@ -81,6 +104,191 @@ irqreturn_t dw_handle_msi_irq(struct pcie_port *pp)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Chained MSI interrupt service routine */
>> +static void dw_chained_msi_isr(struct irq_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
>> + struct pcie_port *pp;
>> + struct dw_pcie *pci;
>> +
>> + chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
>> + pci = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
>> + pp = &pci->pp;
>> +
>> + dw_handle_msi_irq(pp);
>> +
>> + chained_irq_exit(chip, desc);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void dw_pci_setup_msi_msg(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg)
>> +{
>> + struct dw_pcie *pci = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> + struct pcie_port *pp = &pci->pp;
>> + u64 msi_target;
>> +
>> + if (pp->ops->get_msi_addr)
>> + msi_target = pp->ops->get_msi_addr(pp);
>> + else
>> + msi_target = virt_to_phys((void *)pp->msi_data);
>> +
>> + msg->address_lo = lower_32_bits(msi_target);
>> + msg->address_hi = upper_32_bits(msi_target);
>> +
>> + if (pp->ops->get_msi_data)
>> + msg->data = pp->ops->get_msi_data(pp, data->hwirq);
>
> I've already asked about the reason for this indirection, and I'd
> appreciate an answer.
I answered in a previous e-mail. There are some SoCs using Synopsys PCIe Core
that have a custom way of managing some operations, like the msi_data,
msi_addrr, the mask/unmask of interrupts, etc. That is the reason why we have
these callbacks. An SoC specific driver fills their callbacks, call the
pcie-designware functions that they need and initialize their IP. There is a
group of drivers that are standard, like the pcie-designware-plat, exynos, qcom,
artpec6, imx6, etc.
>
>> + else
>> + msg->data = data->hwirq;
>> +
>> + dev_dbg(pci->dev, "msi#%d address_hi %#x address_lo %#x\n",
>> + (int)data->hwirq, msg->address_hi, msg->address_lo);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int dw_pci_msi_set_affinity(struct irq_data *irq_data,
>> + const struct cpumask *mask, bool force)
>> +{
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void dw_pci_bottom_mask(struct irq_data *data)
>> +{
>> + struct dw_pcie *pci = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> + struct pcie_port *pp = &pci->pp;
>> + unsigned int res, bit, ctrl;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pp->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + if (pp->ops->msi_clear_irq)
>> + pp->ops->msi_clear_irq(pp, data->hwirq);
>
> Same thing. If you have to have that kind of indirection, then this is a
> different irqchip altogether. Also, see below for the coding-style.
We can have a different irqchip for each SoC specifc driver that needs it, but
the change would be bigger. I suggest that we keep the current method and get
every driver working properly using the new API and after that I can make a
second round of patches targetting these callbacks. What do you think?
>
>> + else {
>> + ctrl = data->hwirq / 32;
>> + res = ctrl * 12;
>> + bit = data->hwirq % 32;
>> +
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl] &= ~(1 << bit);
>> + dw_pcie_wr_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4,
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl]);
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->lock, flags);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void dw_pci_bottom_unmask(struct irq_data *data)
>> +{
>> + struct dw_pcie *pci = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> + struct pcie_port *pp = &pci->pp;
>> + unsigned int res, bit, ctrl;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pp->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + if (pp->ops->msi_set_irq)
>> + pp->ops->msi_set_irq(pp, data->hwirq);
>> + else {
>
> Coding-style:
>
> if (...) {
> ...
> } else {
>
>> + ctrl = data->hwirq / 32;
>> + res = ctrl * 12;
>> + bit = data->hwirq % 32;
>> +
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl] |= 1 << bit;
>> + dw_pcie_wr_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4,
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl]);
>> + }
Yes correct. I did not run the checkpatch, because I was more worried about the
functionality. I will run it next patch version.
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->lock, flags);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct irq_chip dw_pci_msi_bottom_irq_chip = {
>> + .name = "DWPCI-MSI",
>> + .irq_compose_msi_msg = dw_pci_setup_msi_msg,
>> + .irq_set_affinity = dw_pci_msi_set_affinity,
>> + .irq_mask = dw_pci_bottom_mask,
>> + .irq_unmask = dw_pci_bottom_unmask,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int dw_pcie_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain,
>> + unsigned int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs,
>> + void *args)
>> +{
>> + struct dw_pcie *pci = domain->host_data;
>> + struct pcie_port *pp = &pci->pp;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + unsigned long bit;
>> + u32 i;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pp->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + bit = bitmap_find_next_zero_area(pp->msi_irq_in_use, pp->num_vectors, 0,
>> + nr_irqs, 0);
>> +
>> + if (bit >= pp->num_vectors) {
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->lock, flags);
>> + return -ENOSPC;
>> + }
>> +
>> + bitmap_set(pp->msi_irq_in_use, bit, nr_irqs);
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++)
>> + irq_domain_set_info(domain, virq + i, bit + i,
>> + &dw_pci_msi_bottom_irq_chip,
>> + domain->host_data, handle_simple_irq,
>> + NULL, NULL);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>
> How does this work when you're using the indirection I've moaned about
> earlier? How can you guarantee that there are similar number of
> available vectors?
With MSI_FLAG_MULTI_PCI_MSI, this approach would work properly correct?
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void dw_pcie_irq_domain_free(struct irq_domain *domain,
>> + unsigned int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_data *data = irq_domain_get_irq_data(domain, virq);
>> + struct dw_pcie *pci = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> + struct pcie_port *pp = &pci->pp;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pp->lock, flags);
>> + bitmap_clear(pp->msi_irq_in_use, data->hwirq, nr_irqs);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pp->lock, flags);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct irq_domain_ops dw_pcie_msi_domain_ops = {
>> + .alloc = dw_pcie_irq_domain_alloc,
>> + .free = dw_pcie_irq_domain_free,
>> +};
>> +
>> +int dw_pcie_allocate_domains(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>> +{
>> + struct pcie_port *pp = &pci->pp;
>> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(pci->dev->of_node);
>> +
>> + pp->irq_domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fwnode, pp->num_vectors,
>> + &dw_pcie_msi_domain_ops, pci);
>> + if (!pp->irq_domain) {
>> + dev_err(pci->dev, "failed to create IRQ domain\n");
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pp->msi_domain = pci_msi_create_irq_domain(fwnode,
>> + &dw_pcie_msi_domain_info,
>> + pp->irq_domain);
>> + if (!pp->msi_domain) {
>> + dev_err(pci->dev, "failed to create MSI domain\n");
>> + irq_domain_remove(pp->irq_domain);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void dw_pcie_free_msi(struct pcie_port *pp)
>> +{
>> + irq_set_chained_handler(pp->msi_irq, NULL);
>> + irq_set_handler_data(pp->msi_irq, NULL);
>> +
>> + irq_domain_remove(pp->msi_domain);
>> + irq_domain_remove(pp->irq_domain);
>> +}
>> +
>> void dw_pcie_msi_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>> {
>> u64 msi_target;
>> @@ -97,13 +305,14 @@ void dw_pcie_msi_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>
>> static void dw_pcie_msi_clear_irq(struct pcie_port *pp, int irq)
>> {
>> - unsigned int res, bit, val;
>> + unsigned int res, bit, ctrl;
>>
>> - res = (irq / 32) * 12;
>> + ctrl = irq / 32;
>> + res = ctrl * 12;
>> bit = irq % 32;
>> - dw_pcie_rd_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4, &val);
>> - val &= ~(1 << bit);
>> - dw_pcie_wr_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4, val);
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl] &= ~(1 << bit);
>> + dw_pcie_wr_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4,
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl]);
>> }
>>
>> static void clear_irq_range(struct pcie_port *pp, unsigned int irq_base,
>> @@ -125,13 +334,14 @@ static void clear_irq_range(struct pcie_port *pp, unsigned int irq_base,
>>
>> static void dw_pcie_msi_set_irq(struct pcie_port *pp, int irq)
>> {
>> - unsigned int res, bit, val;
>> + unsigned int res, bit, ctrl;
>>
>> - res = (irq / 32) * 12;
>> + ctrl = irq / 32;
>> + res = ctrl * 12;
>> bit = irq % 32;
>> - dw_pcie_rd_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4, &val);
>> - val |= 1 << bit;
>> - dw_pcie_wr_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4, val);
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl] |= 1 << bit;
>> + dw_pcie_wr_own_conf(pp, PCIE_MSI_INTR0_ENABLE + res, 4,
>> + pp->irq_status[ctrl]);
>> }
>>
>> static int assign_irq(int no_irqs, struct msi_desc *desc, int *pos)
>> @@ -279,11 +489,14 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>> struct device *dev = pci->dev;
>> struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>> struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev);
>> + struct resource_entry *win, *tmp;
>> struct pci_bus *bus, *child;
>> struct resource *cfg_res;
>> int i, ret;
>> +
>> LIST_HEAD(res);
>> - struct resource_entry *win, *tmp;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_init(&pci->pp.lock);
>>
>> cfg_res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "config");
>> if (cfg_res) {
>> @@ -378,17 +591,18 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)) {
>> if (!pp->ops->msi_host_init) {
>> - pp->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(dev->of_node,
>> - MAX_MSI_IRQS, &msi_domain_ops,
>> - &dw_pcie_msi_chip);
>> - if (!pp->irq_domain) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "irq domain init failed\n");
>> - ret = -ENXIO;
>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "num-vectors",
>> + &pp->num_vectors);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pp->num_vectors = 1;
>
> 1? As in "one bit only"? Is that a valid configuration? Also, all of
> this code seems to assume a maximum number of 32 MSIs. Is that a real
> limitation? Because if that's the case, you can drop all the stuff about
> ctrl and the '* 12' offset all over the code.
The IP is capable of handling 256, distributed by 8 registers of 32-bit (shifted
by 12). For now the driver is hardcoded to handle 32 and so you have ctrl = 1 (1
register).
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
Thanks,
Joao
