Message-ID: <546B57E4.9040804@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:29:56 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Yun Wu (Abel)" <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 08/16] genirq: Introduce callback irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg



On 2014/11/18 22:22, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
> On 2014/11/18 22:03, Jiang Liu wrote:
> 
>> On 2014/11/18 21:52, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>> On 2014/11/18 21:43, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014/11/18 21:33, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>>>> On 2014/11/18 18:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014/11/12 21:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>>>  struct irq_chip {
>>>>>>>> @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ struct irq_chip {
>>>>>>>>  	void		(*irq_release_resources)(struct irq_data *data);
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>  	void		(*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>>>>>>> +	void		(*irq_write_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm... It's really weird.
>>>>>>> I don't think it's the interrupt controllers' responsibility to write messages
>>>>>>> for all the endpoint devices since the methods of configuring message registers
>>>>>>> may different between these devices. And theoretically, the endpoint devices
>>>>>>> themselves should take the responsibility to configure their message registers.
>>>>>>> To say the least, the write_msg callback here still need to call some certain
>>>>>>> interfaces provided by the corresponding device.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There would be lots of ARM new devices capable of sending message
>>>>>>> based interrupts to interrupt controllers, does all the drivers of
>>>>>>> the devices need to expose a write_msg callback to interrupt
>>>>>>> controllers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, writing the message _IS_ part of the interrupt controller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in order to enable non PCI based MSI we want to have generic
>>>>>> infrastructure with minimal per device/device class callbacks and of
>>>>>> course you need to provide that callback for your special device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already have non PCI based MSI controllers in x86 today and we need
>>>>>> to handle the whole stuff with tons of copied coded extra for each of
>>>>>> those. So consolidating it into common infrastructure allows us to get
>>>>>> rid of the pointless copied code and reduce the per device effort to
>>>>>> the relevant hardware specific callbacks. irq_write_msi_msg being one
>>>>>> of those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At least, we have the same goal.
>>>>> I will illustrate my thoughts by an example.
>>>>> The current code is something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> Device A
>>>>> ========
>>>>> void A_write_msg() { ... }
>>>>>
>>>>> Group B
>>>>> (a group of devices behave same on writing messages, i.e. PCI)
>>>>> =======
>>>>> void B_write_msg() { ... }
>>>>>
>>>>> Controller
>>>>> ==========
>>>>> irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg () {
>>>>> 	if (A)
>>>>> 		A_write_msg();
>>>>> 	if (B)
>>>>> 		B_write_msg();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> It's horrible when new devices come out, since we need to modify the
>>>>> controller part for each new device.
>>>>> What I suggested is:
>>>>>
>>>>> MSI Core
>>>>> ========
>>>>> struct msi_ops { .write_msg, };
>>>>> struct msi_desc { .msi_ops, };
>>>>>
>>>>> write_msg() {
>>>>> 	X = get_dev();
>>>>> 	irq_chip.compose_msg(X);	// IRQ chips' responsibility
>>>>> 	X_msi_ops.write_msg();		// nothing to do with IRQ chips
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Device A
>>>>> ========
>>>>> void A_write_msg() { ... }
>>>>> A_msi_ops.write_msg = A_write_msg;
>>>>>
>>>>> Group B
>>>>> =======
>>>>> void B_write_msg() { ... }
>>>>> B_msi_ops.write_msg = B_write_msg;
>>>>>
>>>>> Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.
>>>> Hi Yun,
>>>> 	We provide an irq_chip for each type of interrupt controller
>>>> instead of devices. For the example mentioned above, if device A
>>>> and Group B has different interrupt controllers, we just need to
>>>> implement irq_chip_A and irq_chip_B and set irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg()
>>>> to suitable callbacks.
>>>> 	The framework already achieves what you you want:)
>>>
>>> What if device A and group B have the same interrupt controller?
>> Device doesn't care about interrupt controllers, it just cares about
>> interrupts used by itself. It's the interrupt source (controller)
>> enumerators' responsibility to discover interrupt source, associate
>> methods to control the interrupt source and assign irq numbers for
>> interrupt sources.
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
>> There are two ways to associate irq numbers with device:
>> 1) arch code/bus drivers statically assigns irq number for devices
>>    when creating device objects, such as PCI legacy interrupt
>>    (INTA-INTD), IOAPIC interrupts.
> 
> And OF interfaces.
> 
>> 2) device drivers ask interrupt source enumerators to dynamically
>>    create irq numbers, such pci_enable_msix_range() and friends.
>> So device driver definitely doesn't need to known about irq_chip
>> methods to control interrupt sources.
>>
> 
> The above you described is absolutely right, but not the things I want
> to know. :)
> Take GICv3 ITS for example, it deals with both PCI and non PCI message
> interrupts. IIUC, several irq_chips need to be implemented in the ITS
> driver (i.e. pci_msi_chip, A_msi_chip and B_msi_chip). What should we
> do to the ITS driver if new MSI-capable devices come out?
Marc has posted a patchset to enable ITS based on the hierarchy
irqdomain framework, please refer to "[PATCH 00/15] arm64: PCI/MSI:
GICv3 ITS support (stacked domain edition)" at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/620

> 
> Regards,
> 	Abel
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists