[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564D3A78.4020804@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:56:56 -0800
From: Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] PCI: iproc: Add iProc PCIe MSI support
Hi Marc,
On 11/18/2015 5:37 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 11/18/2015 12:48 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:31:54 -0800
>> Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>> +static int iproc_msi_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain,
>>> + unsigned int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs,
>>> + void *args)
>>> +{
>>> + struct iproc_msi *msi = domain->host_data;
>>> + int i, msi_irq;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&msi->bitmap_lock);
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
>>> + msi_irq = find_first_zero_bit(msi->used, msi->nirqs);
>>
>> This is slightly puzzling. Do you really have at most 6 MSIs? Usually,
>> we end up with a larger number of MSIs (32 or 64) multiplexed on top of
>> a small number of wired interrupts. Here, you seem to have a 1-1
>> mapping. Is that really the case?
>
> Yes, based on the poorly written iProc PCIe arch doc, :), we seem to
> have 1-1 mapping between each wired interrupt and MSI, with each MSI
> handled by an event queue, that consists of 64x word entries allocated
> from host memory (DDR). The MSI data is stored in the low 16-bit of each
> entry, whereas the upper 16-bit of each entry is reserved for the iProc
> PCIe controller for its own use.
>
In fact, let me confirm with our ASIC team on the above statement. The
iProc PCIe arch doc is in fact not very clear on this....
>>
>> If so (and assuming the wired interrupts are always contiguous), you
>> shouldn't represent this as a chained interrupt (a multiplexer), but as
>> a stacked irqchip, similar to what GICv2m does.
>>
>
> Okay, I think I might be missing something here, but I thought I
> currently have a stacked irqdomain (chip), i.e., GIC -> inner_domain ->
> MSI domain?
>
> And does this imply I should expect 'nr_irqs' in this routine to be
> always zero and therefore I can get rid of the for loop here (same in
> the domain free routine)?
>
Thanks,
Ray
--
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