[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y0yBbjJgqyBS+viw@iweiny-desk3>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 15:10:54 -0700
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
CC: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
<dave.jiang@...el.com>, <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
<vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
<a.manzanares@...sung.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cxl/pci: Add generic MSI/MSI-X interrupt support
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:49:29PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Introduce a generic irq table for CXL components that can have
> standard irq support - DOE requires dynamic vector sizing and is
> as such is not considered here.
>
> Create an infrastructure to query the max vectors required for the CXL
> device. Users can check the irq_type in the device state to figure
> if they want to attempt to register a handler for it's specific irq
> and deal with it accordingly.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
> ---
> drivers/cxl/cxl.h | 5 ++++
> drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h | 2 ++
> drivers/cxl/pci.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 73 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxl.h b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> index f680450f0b16..879661702054 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> @@ -119,6 +119,11 @@ static inline int ways_to_cxl(unsigned int ways, u8 *iw)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +enum {
> + CXL_IRQ_NONE,
> + CXL_IRQ_MSI,
> +};
I don't recall this being in v1?
Right now do we have any users who will register irq's without having MSI
support?
> +
> /* CXL 2.0 8.2.8.1 Device Capabilities Array Register */
> #define CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_OFFSET 0x0
> #define CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_CAP_ID 0
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h b/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h
> index 88e3a8e54b6a..ca020767f7fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h
> @@ -247,6 +247,8 @@ struct cxl_dev_state {
>
> struct xarray doe_mbs;
>
> + int irq_type;
> +
> int (*mbox_send)(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd *cmd);
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> index faeb5d9d7a7a..942c4449d30f 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> @@ -428,6 +428,67 @@ static void devm_cxl_pci_create_doe(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds)
> }
> }
>
> +/**
> + * struct cxl_irq_cap - CXL feature that is capable of receiving MSI/MSI-X irqs.
> + *
> + * @name: Name of the device generating this interrupt.
> + * @get_max_msgnum: Get the feature's largest interrupt message number. If the
> + * feature does not have the Interrupt Supported bit set, then
> + * return -1.
> + */
> +struct cxl_irq_cap {
> + const char *name;
> + int (*get_max_msgnum)(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds);
> +};
> +
> +static const struct cxl_irq_cap cxl_irq_cap_table[] = { NULL };
> +
> +static void cxl_pci_free_irq_vectors(void *data)
> +{
> + pci_free_irq_vectors(data);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Attempt to allocate the largest amount of necessary vectors.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 upon a successful allocation of *all* vectors, or a
> + * negative value otherwise.
> + */
> +static int cxl_pci_alloc_irq_vectors(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = cxlds->dev;
> + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(dev);
> + int rc, i, vectors = -1;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cxl_irq_cap_table); i++) {
> + int irq;
> +
> + if (!cxl_irq_cap_table[i].get_max_msgnum)
> + continue;
> +
> + irq = cxl_irq_cap_table[i].get_max_msgnum(cxlds);
> + vectors = max_t(int, irq, vectors);
> + }
> +
> + if (vectors == -1)
> + return -1;
> +
> + vectors++;
> + rc = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, vectors, vectors,
> + PCI_IRQ_MSIX | PCI_IRQ_MSI);
Yea without PCI_IRQ_LEGACY I don't think we need any communication about which
type of vectors were allocated.
Basically if cxl_pci_alloc_irq_vectors() is successful all users can assume
that at least MSI is available...
For the mailboxes they could key off of the message number being set in cxlds.
> + if (rc < 0)
> + return rc;
> +
> + if (rc != vectors) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Not enough interrupts; use polling instead.\n");
> + /* some got allocated, clean them up */
> + cxl_pci_free_irq_vectors(pdev);
> + return -ENOSPC;
> + }
> +
> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, cxl_pci_free_irq_vectors, pdev);
> +}
> +
> static int cxl_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> {
> struct cxl_register_map map;
> @@ -478,6 +539,11 @@ static int cxl_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>
> devm_cxl_pci_create_doe(cxlds);
>
> + if (!cxl_pci_alloc_irq_vectors(cxlds))
This can't be here for the event stuff because I need the mailboxes set up to
find out the message numbers for those events. I had a hell of a time by
accident putting it here. :-(
> + cxlds->irq_type = CXL_IRQ_MSI;
> + else
> + cxlds->irq_type = CXL_IRQ_NONE;
> +
> rc = cxl_pci_setup_mailbox(cxlds);
> if (rc)
> return rc;
Can't the mailbox irq's be set up after this call? Mailbox access during set
up is probably fine using polling, right?
Ira
Powered by blists - more mailing lists