Re: [Patch Part2 v3 01/24] irqdomain: Introduce new interfaces to support hierarchy irqdomains

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

On 28/10/14 20:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 28/10/14 19:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> So while we are at it:
>>>
>>>> +	if (irq_domain_is_hierarchy(domain)) {
>>>> +		if (domain->ops->xlate) {
>>>> +			/*
>>>> +			 * If we've already configured this interrupt,
>>>> +			 * don't do it again, or hell will break loose.
>>>> +			 */
>>>> +			virq = irq_find_mapping(domain, hwirq);
>>>> +			if (virq)
>>>> +				return virq;
>>>
>>> I can understand that it is an issue if the mapping exists already,
>>> but I have to ask WHY is it correct behaviour to call into that code
>>> for an existing mapping.
>>
>> As I have originally looked at this, I'll answer the question:
>>
>> The generic DT code parses the whole tree, and generates platform
>> devices as it goes. As part of the platform device creation, it
>> populates the IRQ resources, which translates into calling into
>> irq_create_of_mapping(). You could argue that this behaviour is crazy,
>> and I wouldn't disagree.
> 
> Mooo.

Quite.

>> See http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg53164.html for more gory
>> details.
>>
>>> And why would this check only apply if domain->ops->xlate is set?
>>> irq_create_mapping() does it unconditionally.
>>
>> My original code used the xlate callback to parse the opaque irq_data,
>> computing hwirq, and I suspect this is a leftover of it. The above code
>> seems to pull hwirq out of thin air, which is probably not the intended
>> behaviour. Joe?
> 
> No. Here is the full patch from Joe:
> 
>   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-October/296543.html
> 
> hwirq gets either set from hwirq = irq_data->args[0] or from the xlate
> call.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense.

> But my question still stands:
> 
> Why would this check only apply if domain->ops->xlate is set?
> irq_create_mapping() does it unconditionally.

I don't think we should consider xlate at all. We already resolved hwirq
(either directly or through a xlate call), and the check should always
be performed (otherwise we're likely to fall into the same trap again).
Looks like a bug to me.

Thanks,

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