Re: [PATCH 2/3] Refactor msi/msix restore code Part2

[Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>]

On 2013-08-01 23:16, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:41:32PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Zhenzhong Duan
>> <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> xen_initdom_restore_msi_irqs trigger a hypercall to restore addr/data/mask
>>> in dom0. It's better to do the same for default_restore_msi_irqs in baremetal.
>>>
>>> Move restore of mask in default_restore_msi_irqs, this could avoid mask
>>> restored twice in dom0, once in hypercall, the other in kernel.
>>>
>>> Without that, qlcnic driver calling pci_reset_function will lost interrupt
>>> in dom0.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Sucheta Chakraborty <sucheta.chakraborty@qlogic.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/pci/msi.c |   17 ++++++++++++++---
>>>   1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> index 87223ae..922fb49 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> @@ -216,6 +216,8 @@ void unmask_msi_irq(struct irq_data *data)
>>>   #ifdef HAVE_DEFAULT_MSI_RESTORE_IRQS
>>>   void default_restore_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int irq)
>>>   {
>>> +       int pos;
>>> +       u16 control;
>>>          struct msi_desc *entry;
>>>
>>>          entry = NULL;
>>> @@ -228,8 +230,19 @@ void default_restore_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int irq)
>>>                  entry = irq_get_msi_desc(irq);
>>>          }
>>>
>>> -       if (entry)
>>> +       if (entry) {
>>>                  write_msi_msg(irq, &entry->msg);
>>> +               if (dev->msix_enabled) {
>>> +                       msix_mask_irq(entry, entry->masked);
>>> +                       readl(entry->mask_base);
>>> +               } else {
>>> +                       pos = entry->msi_attrib.pos;
>>> +                       pci_read_config_word(dev, pos + PCI_MSI_FLAGS,
>>> +                                            &control);
>>> +                       msi_mask_irq(entry, msi_capable_mask(control),
>>> +                                    entry->masked);
>>> +               }
>>> +       }
>>>   }
>>>   #endif
>>>
>>> @@ -406,7 +419,6 @@ static void __pci_restore_msi_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>          arch_restore_msi_irqs(dev, dev->irq);
>>>
>>>          pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_FLAGS, &control);
>>> -       msi_mask_irq(entry, msi_capable_mask(control), entry->masked);
>>>          control &= ~PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QSIZE;
>>>          control |= (entry->msi_attrib.multiple << 4) | PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE;
>>>          pci_write_config_word(dev, dev->msi_cap + PCI_MSI_FLAGS, control);
>>> @@ -430,7 +442,6 @@ static void __pci_restore_msix_state(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>
>>>          list_for_each_entry(entry, &dev->msi_list, list) {
>>>                  arch_restore_msi_irqs(dev, entry->irq);
>>> -               msix_mask_irq(entry, entry->masked);
>>>          }
>>>
>>>          control &= ~PCI_MSIX_FLAGS_MASKALL;
>> Konrad, are you OK with this patch now?
> Yes, I wanted to make sure that the existing behavior under baremetal
> was not altered.
>
> And Duan had confirmed it was not  - thought to be on a safe side it
> would be good to confirm this via testing just in case.
I had ever let our customer test on baremetal and it passed.

zduan