All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] PCI/MSI:  Add helper function pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid().
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:33:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <560D6068.6030801@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <560D5B98.5050400@caviumnetworks.com>

On 01/10/15 17:13, David Daney wrote:
> On 10/01/2015 02:24 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On 30/09/15 23:47, David Daney wrote:
>>> From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
>>>
>>> Add pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid() to return the MSI requester id (RID).
>>> Initially needed by gic-v3 based systems. It will be used by follow on
>>> patch to drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its-pci-msi.c
>>>
>>> Initially supports mapping the RID via OF device tree.  In the future,
>>> this could be extended to use ACPI _IORT tables as well.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/pci/msi.c   | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   include/linux/msi.h |  1 +
>>>   2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> index d449714..92b6dc9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>   #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>
>>>   #include "pci.h"
>>>
>>> @@ -1327,4 +1328,34 @@ struct irq_domain *pci_msi_create_default_irq_domain(struct device_node *node,
>>>
>>>   	return domain;
>>>   }
>>> +
>>> +struct get_mis_id_data {
>>> +	u32	alias;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int get_msi_id_cb(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 alias, void *data)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct get_mis_id_data *s = data;
>>> +
>>> +	s->alias = alias;
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> Why not use a naked u32, since you only have a single field in this
>> structure? Or is it that you are anticipating other fields there?
> 
> In this case, I think using a pointer to u32 is a good idea.  It would 
> simplify the source code somewhat.  Although, I think the generated 
> binary would likely be the same.  I don't foresee adding things to this 
> structure.  If it becomes necessary in the future, we can just go back 
> to using a pointer to a structure.
> 
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid - Get the MSI requester id (RID)
>>> + * @domain:	The interrupt domain
>>> + * @pdev:	The PCI device.
>>> + *
>>> + * The RID for a device is formed from the alias, with a firmware
>>> + * supplied mapping applied
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns: The RID.
>>> + */
>>> +u32 pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid(struct irq_domain *domain, struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct get_mis_id_data d;
>>> +
>>> +	d.alias = 0;
>>> +	pci_for_each_dma_alias(pdev, get_msi_id_cb, &d);
>>> +	return of_msi_map_rid(&pdev->dev, domain->of_node, d.alias);
>>
>> Should you check whether domain->of_node is NULL first? I don't think
>> of_msi_map_rid would have any problem with that, but a domain that is
>> not backed by an of_node makes me feel a bit uneasy and would tend to
>> indicate that we're not using DT.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense.  As you observe, I think it probably works as is, 
> but it would be good to make it more clear.  This is especially true 
> when we add ACPI support.  We will want to be clear on which of 
> device-tree or ACPI we are using.
> 
> 
>>
>>> +}
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_PCI_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN */
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/msi.h b/include/linux/msi.h
>>> index ad939d0..56e3b76 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/msi.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/msi.h
>>> @@ -293,6 +293,7 @@ irq_hw_number_t pci_msi_domain_calc_hwirq(struct pci_dev *dev,
>>>   					  struct msi_desc *desc);
>>>   int pci_msi_domain_check_cap(struct irq_domain *domain,
>>>   			     struct msi_domain_info *info, struct device *dev);
>>> +u32 pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid(struct irq_domain *domain, struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_PCI_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN */
>>>
>>>   #endif /* LINUX_MSI_H */
>>>
>>
>> Otherwise looks good to me.
> 
> I will send what I hope is the final revision of the patches later today.

Excellent. In related news, I've rebased my msi-parent stuff on top of
this series, and extended it to also deal with msi-map for matching MSI
domains.

With the two series, we should now have something vaguely coherent that
deals with both the old version of msi-parent, its new definition, and
msi-map in its whole glory. Fun times!

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/4] PCI/MSI: Add helper function pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid().
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:33:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <560D6068.6030801@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <560D5B98.5050400@caviumnetworks.com>

On 01/10/15 17:13, David Daney wrote:
> On 10/01/2015 02:24 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On 30/09/15 23:47, David Daney wrote:
>>> From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
>>>
>>> Add pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid() to return the MSI requester id (RID).
>>> Initially needed by gic-v3 based systems. It will be used by follow on
>>> patch to drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its-pci-msi.c
>>>
>>> Initially supports mapping the RID via OF device tree.  In the future,
>>> this could be extended to use ACPI _IORT tables as well.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/pci/msi.c   | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   include/linux/msi.h |  1 +
>>>   2 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> index d449714..92b6dc9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/msi.c
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>   #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>
>>>   #include "pci.h"
>>>
>>> @@ -1327,4 +1328,34 @@ struct irq_domain *pci_msi_create_default_irq_domain(struct device_node *node,
>>>
>>>   	return domain;
>>>   }
>>> +
>>> +struct get_mis_id_data {
>>> +	u32	alias;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int get_msi_id_cb(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 alias, void *data)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct get_mis_id_data *s = data;
>>> +
>>> +	s->alias = alias;
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> Why not use a naked u32, since you only have a single field in this
>> structure? Or is it that you are anticipating other fields there?
> 
> In this case, I think using a pointer to u32 is a good idea.  It would 
> simplify the source code somewhat.  Although, I think the generated 
> binary would likely be the same.  I don't foresee adding things to this 
> structure.  If it becomes necessary in the future, we can just go back 
> to using a pointer to a structure.
> 
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid - Get the MSI requester id (RID)
>>> + * @domain:	The interrupt domain
>>> + * @pdev:	The PCI device.
>>> + *
>>> + * The RID for a device is formed from the alias, with a firmware
>>> + * supplied mapping applied
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns: The RID.
>>> + */
>>> +u32 pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid(struct irq_domain *domain, struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct get_mis_id_data d;
>>> +
>>> +	d.alias = 0;
>>> +	pci_for_each_dma_alias(pdev, get_msi_id_cb, &d);
>>> +	return of_msi_map_rid(&pdev->dev, domain->of_node, d.alias);
>>
>> Should you check whether domain->of_node is NULL first? I don't think
>> of_msi_map_rid would have any problem with that, but a domain that is
>> not backed by an of_node makes me feel a bit uneasy and would tend to
>> indicate that we're not using DT.
> 
> Yes, that makes sense.  As you observe, I think it probably works as is, 
> but it would be good to make it more clear.  This is especially true 
> when we add ACPI support.  We will want to be clear on which of 
> device-tree or ACPI we are using.
> 
> 
>>
>>> +}
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_PCI_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN */
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/msi.h b/include/linux/msi.h
>>> index ad939d0..56e3b76 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/msi.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/msi.h
>>> @@ -293,6 +293,7 @@ irq_hw_number_t pci_msi_domain_calc_hwirq(struct pci_dev *dev,
>>>   					  struct msi_desc *desc);
>>>   int pci_msi_domain_check_cap(struct irq_domain *domain,
>>>   			     struct msi_domain_info *info, struct device *dev);
>>> +u32 pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid(struct irq_domain *domain, struct pci_dev *pdev);
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_PCI_MSI_IRQ_DOMAIN */
>>>
>>>   #endif /* LINUX_MSI_H */
>>>
>>
>> Otherwise looks good to me.
> 
> I will send what I hope is the final revision of the patches later today.

Excellent. In related news, I've rebased my msi-parent stuff on top of
this series, and extended it to also deal with msi-map for matching MSI
domains.

With the two series, we should now have something vaguely coherent that
deals with both the old version of msi-parent, its new definition, and
msi-map in its whole glory. Fun times!

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-01 16:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-30 22:46 [PATCH v3 0/4] MSI, of, irqchip/gicv3-its: Handle "msi-map" properties David Daney
2015-09-30 22:46 ` David Daney
2015-09-30 22:46 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] Docs: dt: Add PCI MSI map bindings David Daney
2015-09-30 22:46   ` David Daney
2015-10-01 13:02   ` Rob Herring
2015-10-01 13:02     ` Rob Herring
2015-10-01 13:02     ` Rob Herring
2015-09-30 22:47 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] of/irq: Add new function of_msi_map_rid() David Daney
2015-09-30 22:47   ` David Daney
2015-09-30 22:47   ` David Daney
2015-10-01 13:08   ` Rob Herring
2015-10-01 13:08     ` Rob Herring
2015-10-01 13:08     ` Rob Herring
2015-09-30 22:47 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] PCI/MSI: Add helper function pci_msi_domain_get_msi_rid() David Daney
2015-09-30 22:47   ` David Daney
2015-10-01  9:24   ` Marc Zyngier
2015-10-01  9:24     ` Marc Zyngier
2015-10-01 16:13     ` David Daney
2015-10-01 16:13       ` David Daney
2015-10-01 16:13       ` David Daney
2015-10-01 16:33       ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2015-10-01 16:33         ` Marc Zyngier
2015-09-30 22:47 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Add handling of PCI requester id David Daney
2015-09-30 22:47   ` David Daney
2015-09-30 22:47   ` David Daney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=560D6068.6030801@arm.com \
    --to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
    --cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
    --cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
    --cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
    --cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.