Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] irqchip: Add IMX MU MSI controller driver

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Frank Li <frank.li@nxp.com>
Cc: "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org"
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	"s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	"kw@linux.com" <kw@linux.com>,
	"bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>, Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>,
	"jdmason@kudzu.us" <jdmason@kudzu.us>,
	"kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	"festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>, "kishon@ti.com" <kishon@ti.com>,
	"lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	"ntb@lists.linux.dev" <ntb@lists.linux.dev>,
	"lznuaa@gmail.com" <lznuaa@gmail.com>,
	"imx@lists.linux.dev" <imx@lists.linux.dev>,
	"manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org"
	<manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 2/4] irqchip: Add IMX MU MSI controller driver
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 15:51:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <877d2dvs0d.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM9PR04MB879338D6D4B55A74CD002E6D88409@AM9PR04MB8793.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 15:23:53 +0100,
Frank Li <frank.li@nxp.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Wed, 07 Sep 2022 04:48:54 +0100,
> > Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The MU block found in a number of Freescale/NXP SoCs supports
> > generating
> > > IRQs by writing data to a register
> > >
> > > This enables the MU block to be used as a MSI controller, by leveraging
> > > the platform-MSI API
> > 
> > Missing full stop after each sentence.
> 
> [Frank Li] Do you means missed "."?

Yes.

> > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> > > index 5e4e50122777d..e04c6521dce55 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> > > @@ -470,6 +470,15 @@ config IMX_INTMUX
> > >       help
> > >         Support for the i.MX INTMUX interrupt multiplexer.
> > >
> > > +config IMX_MU_MSI
> > > +     bool "i.MX MU work as MSI controller"
> > 
> > Why bool? Doesn't it also work as a module?
> 
> [Frank Li] I remember you said that irq-chip can't be removed. 
> So I am not sure why need build as module.

Not being removed doesn't mean it cannot be built as a module and
loaded on demand. Why should I be forced to have this driver built-in
if my kernel is used on a variety of systems, only one of them having
this device?

> > > +
> > > +struct imx_mu_msi {
> > > +     spinlock_t                      lock;
> > > +     raw_spinlock_t                  reglock;
> > 
> > Why two locks? Isn't one enough to protect both MSI allocation (which
> > happens once in a blue moon) and register access?
> 
> [Frank Li] Previously your comment, ask me to use raw_spinlock for
> read\write register access.  I don't think raw_spinlock is good for
> MSI allocation.

Why wouldn't it be good enough? I'd really like to know.

> 
> > 
> > Also, where are these locks initialised?
> > 
> 
> [Frank Li] struct imx_mu_msi is fill zero when allocated.
> Does it still need additional initialization for spinlock?

Have you heard of lockdep? Or CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK?  Maybe you should
try it.

> > > +     if (!pdev)
> > > +             return -ENODEV;
> > 
> > How can that happen?
> > 
> [Frank Li] Not sure, many driver check as it. 

And? Just because someone does something pointless, you have to
imitate them?

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.