[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <660e8597-bb7a-b5a0-e3d4-f108a211ae76@socionext.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:36:21 +0900
From: Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>
To: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] PCI: uniphier: Add misc interrupt handler to
invoke PME and AER
Hi Pali,
On 2021/07/23 17:37, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Friday 23 July 2021 15:59:12 Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>> Hi Pali,
>>
>> On 2021/07/23 2:26, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>> On Friday 23 July 2021 01:54:10 Kunihiko Hayashi wrote:
>>>> On 2021/07/18 9:51, Pali Rohar wrote:
>>>>>>> IMO this should be modelled with a separate IRQ domain and chip for
>>>>>>> the root port (yes this implies describing the root port in the dts
>>>>>>> file with a separate msi-parent).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series as it stands is a kludge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. However I need some time to consider the way to separate IRQ domain.
>>>>>> Is there any idea or example to handle PME/AER with IRQ domain?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems that you are dealing with very similar issues as me with aardvark
>>>>> driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an inspiration look at my aardvark patch which setup separate IRQ
>>>>> domain for PME, AER and HP interrupts:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20210506153153.30454-32-pali@kernel.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to custom driver map_irq function, it is not needed to describe
>>>>> root port with separate msi-parent in DTS.
>>>>
>>>> I need to understand your solution, though, this might be the same situation as my driver.
>>>
>>> I think it is very very similar as aardvark also returns zero as hw irq
>>> number (and it is not possible to change it).
>>>
>>> So simple solution for you is also to register separate IRQ domain for
>>> Root Port Bridge and then re-trigger interrupt with number 0 (which you
>>> wrote that is default) as:
>>>
>>> virq = irq_find_mapping(priv->irq_domain, 0);
>>> generic_handle_irq(virq);
>>>
>>> in your uniphier_pcie_misc_isr() function.
>>
>> I'm not sure "register separate IRQ domain for Root Port Bridge".
>> Do you mean that your suggestion is to create new IRQ domain, and add this domain to root port?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Or could you show me something example?
>
> I have already sent link to patch above which it implements for
> pci-aardvark.c driver.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20210506153153.30454-32-pali@kernel.org/
Thank you for the example.
> In device prove callback register domain by irq_domain_add_linear().
> In bridge map_irq() callback use irq_create_mapping() for Root Port
> device (and otherwise default of_irq_parse_and_map_pci()). And in
> uniphier_pcie_misc_isr() retrigger interrupt into new domain.
I understand it late.
The main point is to replace bridge->map_irq() with private own map_irq().
>
>> The re-trigger part is the same method as v5 patch I wrote.
>
> Just you need to specify that new/private IRQ domain into
> irq_find_mapping() call.
I'll try to replace the events with new IRQ domain.
Thank you,
---
Best Regards
Kunihiko Hayashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists