Message-ID: <546F0D43.4020307@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:00:35 +0000
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains

Yijing,

On 21/11/14 01:54, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> Thomas, let me know if you want to do that.  I suppose we could add a new
>>> patch to add it back, but that would leave bisection broken for the
>>> interval between c167caf8d174 and the patch that adds it back.
>>
>> Fortunately my irq/irqdomain branch is not immutable yet. So we have
>> no problem at that point. I can rebase on your branch until tomorrow
>> night. Or just rebase on mainline and we sort out the merge conflicts
>> later, i.e. delegate them to Linus so his job of pulling stuff gets
>> not completely boring.
> 
> Hi Thomas, sorry for my introducing the broken.
> 
>>
>> What I'm more worried about is whether this intended change is going
>> to inflict a problem on Jiangs intention to deduce the MSI irq domain
>> from the device, which we really need for making DMAR work w/o going
>> through loops and hoops.
>>
>> I have limited knowledge about the actual scope of iommu (DMAR) units
>> versus device/bus/host-controllers, so I would appreciate a proper
>> explanation for that from you or Jiang or both.
> 
> In my personal opinion, if it's not necessary, we should not put stuff
> into pci_dev or pci_bus. If we plan to save msi_controller in pci_bus or
> pci_dev.
> I have a proposal, I would be appreciated if you could give some comments.
> First we refactor pci_host_bridge to make a generic
> pci_host_bridge, then we could save pci domain in it to eliminate
> arch specific functions. I aslo wanted to save msi_controller as
> pci domain, but now Jiang refactor hierarchy irq domain, and
> pci devices under the same pci host bridge may need to associate
> to different msi_controllers.
> 
> So I want to associate a msi_controller finding ops with generic pci_host_bridge,
> then every pci device could find its msi_controller/irq_domain by a
> common function
> 
> E.g
> 
> struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> 	struct msi_controller *ctrl;
> 	struct pci_host_bridge *host = find_pci_host_bridge(pdev->bus);
> 	if (host && host->pci_get_msi_controller)
> 		ctrl = pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev);
> 
> 	return ctrl;	
> }
> 
> If I miss something, please let me know, thanks.

That feels slightly convoluted for something that should be a very
simple operation. Does this mean you're trying to represent a situation
where:
- a single host bridge has multiple MSI controllers,
- this bridge serves multiple busses,
- devices on the same bus can talk to different MSI controllers?

That would be the only case where the current way we pass the
msi_controller around wouldn't work.

If that's what you're trying to do, I can see how this work, but I'd
suggest you put that infrastructure in place before tearing down the
existing one. This means being having support at the host-bridge level
and reasonable defaults for the non-complicated case where bus->msi is
exactly what you want.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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