[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <615c6807-c018-92c9-b66a-8afdda183699@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:24:56 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To: "Pankaj Bansal (OSS)" <pankaj.bansal@....nxp.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
CC: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Makarand Pawagi <makarand.pawagi@....com>,
Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....com>,
"stuyoder@...il.com" <stuyoder@...il.com>,
"nleeder@...eaurora.org" <nleeder@...eaurora.org>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@....com>,
"Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
"jon@...id-run.com" <jon@...id-run.com>,
"Russell King" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Andy Wang <Andy.Wang@....com>, Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@....com>,
Paul Yang <Paul.Yang@....com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bus: fsl-mc: Add ACPI support for fsl-mc
Hi Pankaj,
On 2020/2/18 16:00, Pankaj Bansal (OSS) wrote:
[...]
>>>> Side note: would you mind removing the email headers (as above) in your
>>>> replies please ?
>>
>> Read the question above please.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> As stated above, in Linux MC is a bus (just like PCI bus, AMBA bus etc)
>>>>> There can be multiple devices attached to this bus. Moreover, we can
>>>> dynamically create/destroy these devices.
>>>>> Now, we want to represent this BUS (not individual devices connected to
>> bus)
>>>> in IORT table.
>>>>> The only possible way right now we see is that we describe it as Named
>>>> components having a pool of ID mappings.
>>>>> As and when devices are created and attached to bus, we sift through this
>> pool
>>>> to correctly determine the output ID for the device.
>>>>> Now the input ID that we provide, can come from device itself.
>>>>> Then we can use the Platform MSI framework for MC bus devices.
>>>>
>>>> So are you asking me if that's OK ? Or there is something you can't
>>>> describe with IORT ?
>>>
>>> I am asking if that would be acceptable?
>>> i.e. we represent MC bus as Named component is IORT table with a pool of IDs
>> (without single ID mapping flag)
>>> and then we use the Platform MSI framework for all children devices of MC
>> bus.
>>> Note that it would require the Platform MSI layer to correctly pass an input id
>> for a platform device to IORT layer.
>>
>> How is this solved in DT ? You don't seem to need any DT binding on top
>> of the msi-parent property, which is equivalent to IORT single mappings
>> AFAICS so I would like to understand the whole DT flow (so that I
>> understand how this FSL bus works) before commenting any further.
>
> In DT case, we create the domain DOMAIN_BUS_FSL_MC_MSI for MC bus and it's children.
> And then when MC child device is created, we search the "msi-parent" property from the MC
> DT node and get the ITS associated with MC bus. Then we search DOMAIN_BUS_FSL_MC_MSI
> on that ITS. Once we find the domain, we can call msi_domain_alloc_irqs for that domain.
>
> This is exactly what we tried to do initially with ACPI. But the searching DOMAIN_BUS_FSL_MC_MSI
> associated to an ITS, is something that is part of drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c.
> (similar to DOMAIN_BUS_PLATFORM_MSI and DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI)
Can you have a look at mbigen driver (drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c) to see if
it helps you?
mbigen is an irq converter to convert device's wired interrupts into MSI
(connecting to ITS), which will alloc a bunch of MSIs from ITS platform MSI
domain at the setup.
Thanks
Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists