Hi,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 07:50:14PM +0800, yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Yu-Yen Ting <steventing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> MSI interrupt should be enabled on certain platform.
>
> Add a module parameter disable_msi to disable MSI interrupt,
> driver will then use legacy interrupt instead.
> And the interrupt mode is not able to change at run-time, so
> the module parameter is read only.
Well, if we unbind/rebind the device, probe() will pick up the new
value. e.g.:
echo '0000:01:00.0' > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/rtw_pci/unbind
echo '0000:01:00.0' > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/rtw_pci/bind
So is it really necessary to mark read-only? I think there's a general
understanding that module parameters are not always "immediately
effective."
> Tested-by: Ján Veselý <jano.vesely@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yu-Yen Ting <steventing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
> index 23dd06a..25410f6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/pci.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,10 @@
> #include "rx.h"
> #include "debug.h"
>
> +static bool rtw_disable_msi;
> +module_param_named(disable_msi, rtw_disable_msi, bool, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msi, "Set Y to disable MSI interrupt support");
> +
> static u32 rtw_pci_tx_queue_idx_addr[] = {
> [RTW_TX_QUEUE_BK] = RTK_PCI_TXBD_IDX_BKQ,
> [RTW_TX_QUEUE_BE] = RTK_PCI_TXBD_IDX_BEQ,
> @@ -874,6 +878,7 @@ static irqreturn_t rtw_pci_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *dev)
> if (!rtwpci->irq_enabled)
> goto out;
>
> + rtw_pci_disable_interrupt(rtwdev, rtwpci);
Why exactly do you have to mask interrupts during the ISR? Is there a
race in rtw_pci_irq_recognized() or something?
> rtw_pci_irq_recognized(rtwdev, rtwpci, irq_status);
>
> if (irq_status[0] & IMR_MGNTDOK)
...
> @@ -1103,6 +1110,45 @@ static struct rtw_hci_ops rtw_pci_ops = {
> .write_data_h2c = rtw_pci_write_data_h2c,
> };
>
> +static int rtw_pci_request_irq(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + struct rtw_pci *rtwpci = (struct rtw_pci *)rtwdev->priv;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!rtw_disable_msi) {
> + ret = pci_enable_msi(pdev);
> + if (ret) {
> + rtw_warn(rtwdev, "failed to enable msi, using legacy irq\n");
> + } else {
> + rtw_warn(rtwdev, "pci msi enabled\n");
> + rtwpci->msi_enabled = true;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ret = request_irq(pdev->irq, &rtw_pci_interrupt_handler, IRQF_SHARED,
> + KBUILD_MODNAME, rtwdev);
> + if (ret) {
> + rtw_err(rtwdev, "failed to request irq\n");
Print out 'ret' here?
> + if (rtwpci->msi_enabled) {
> + pci_disable_msi(pdev);
> + rtwpci->msi_enabled = false;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
Otherwise, looks fine:
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
