[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87jyznmf4z.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 18:20:28 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tobias Schumacher <ts@...ux.ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens
<hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Alexander Gordeev
<agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>, Christian Borntraeger
<borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Niklas
Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>, Gerald Schaefer
<gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>, Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>, Halil
Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>, Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Tobias
Schumacher <ts@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] s390/pci: Migrate s390 IRQ logic to IRQ domain API
On Tue, Nov 18 2025 at 17:13, Tobias Schumacher wrote:
> static struct irq_chip zpci_irq_chip = {
> .name = "PCI-MSI",
> .irq_unmask = pci_msi_unmask_irq,
> .irq_mask = pci_msi_mask_irq,
> + .irq_compose_msi_msg = zpci_compose_msi_msg
> };
> +static struct msi_parent_ops zpci_msi_parent_ops = {
> + .supported_flags = MSI_GENERIC_FLAGS_MASK |
> + MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSIX |
> + MSI_FLAG_MULTI_PCI_MSI,
> + .required_flags = MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_DOM_OPS |
> + MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS |
> + MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSI_MASK_PARENT,
That MASK_PARENT flag is really only necessary if you want to avoid
masking/unmasking at the PCI level during operation
(disable/enable_irq()). See
f09c1d63e895 ("irqchip/msi-lib: Honor the MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSI_MASK_PARENT flag")
for a detailed explanation.
But as s390 does not seem to provide mask/unmask at a different level of
the interrupt transport, setting this flag and the mask/unmask callbacks
above is pointless.
If the flag is not set the PCI core will use pci_msi_[un]mask_irq() for the per
device chip at the top of the hierarchy, which avoids the indirection to
the parent chip.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists