[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200806001927.GM19097@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 21:19:27 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To: "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Lin, Jing" <jing.lin@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"netanelg@...lanox.com" <netanelg@...lanox.com>,
"shahafs@...lanox.com" <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
"yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com" <yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Ortiz, Samuel" <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>,
"Hossain, Mona" <mona.hossain@...el.com>,
"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/18] irq/dev-msi: Add support for a new DEV_MSI
irq domain
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 12:13:24AM +0000, Dey, Megha wrote:
> > Well, I had suggested to pass in the parent struct device, but it could certainly
> > use an irq_domain instead:
> >
> > platform_msi_assign_domain(dev, device_to_iommu(p_dev)->ir_domain);
> >
> > Or
> >
> > platform_msi_assign_domain(dev, pdev->msi_domain)
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Any maybe the natural expression is to add a version of
> > platform_msi_create_device_domain() that accepts a parent irq_domain() and if
> > the device doesn't already have a msi_domain then it creates one. Might be too
> > tricky to manage lifetime of the new irq_domain though..
> >
> > It feels cleaner to me if everything related to this is contained in the
> > platform_msi and the driver using it. Not sure it makes sense to involve the
> > iommu?
>
> Well yeah something like this can be done, but what is the missing
> piece is where the IRQ domain actually gets created, i.e where this
> new version of platform_msi_create_device_domain() is called. That
> is the only piece that is currently done in the IOMMU driver only
> for DSA mdev. Not that all devices need to do it this way.. do you
> have suggestions as to where you want to call this function?
Oops, I was thinking of platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs() not
create_device_domain()
ie call it in the device driver that wishes to consume the extra
MSIs.
Is there a harm if each device driver creates a new irq_domain for its
use?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists