From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 654FC2E2DD8 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2025 21:05:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.48 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760648752; cv=none; b=I0AEo7h1NO4i0wLKGAghz5tFFcVEI0/nYLzxjPNVwJGVnSyv3e3FpQ3MUTSVbmBJxj5XOcY2JTC8fhnB91AOXRkLMYSCPvy7vowOtqZ3YqBIQoDzG+1kfOLsZ6rad02HYzmaqr8uREyg2RHH6+kTFbvk7bLPX2fACvjcnjIYJiQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760648752; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0dR3gSPfSYELSWtkPMVt7iH1wbrrlnNX3HP+So0LDng=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Nj0dQAEW5t3DOA/XggsrE0gtn4Wk/5UyHL4jeQEi7Z9+GXWH3qTo1NmSHr9N3L6a92mHgUchjy6XJ2r45r33KqkcHIxErHxYSvVjwcF52Kh9SBHz7w356Dji+hpByLcEeYKhSBFp7pMkiUDeE96pDTfHxHSb12ab1oHoB2RKhfM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=BUFAmQ4b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.48 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="BUFAmQ4b" Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-33badfbbc48so1559359a91.2 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:05:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1760648749; x=1761253549; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L2EzoKc9cX6h7fNdOB+aUUlkvfgneGtOjZpo3gaTcMo=; b=BUFAmQ4baeyeEFeasA5F4ZJCXl12P9jAhpD6IsYgU15Dpczvozr6nBM65cw2Obowxl vHjL0WQ5Kd5pHBVrcaNF41capwFvfarARsGBHpVgIk1qpmPUCalqC2In3McJSjlnC3tZ jOQ3MXWxFRR6+JwLEg0/L8lbXLTAs4Ya0OOyxtlPcOHa14c8fM06TQcrK1S6xbeKjcI9 fWdFxLqjoBaWbOaYuj3dtyVOJCpsbDmWw8IhQuCMJ5wKvA3gPS+y4nMOKriZRYRInSGt ZYxCGGf8wsMpQ/ByGDiVB/PLmtT1AYnTi8rW9rg0HBX3EOGJ7ekCeD4NJ0zLQ26zIQeu hVCg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1760648749; x=1761253549; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L2EzoKc9cX6h7fNdOB+aUUlkvfgneGtOjZpo3gaTcMo=; b=HFTpzBRkEAcBkmt9y0ZcOGBjatG2/gXVMCGyrJJq9buZfBLwvWbpb+DL6dmN6CmU1d fdhc+KoMi5qxaQhLN+PNDcLCPk+XwSbADRCMwoScwDYHzR3tShNlSIMIyfNNNfk26l7P WYCSwQTXI+m5ZKjOSxskBlA1FTLqTaRL+HG3jCWQ3qeAOHiRjCVreZOun2d8JK9vOyZn rjbCp1mchk5UGemmIbxF1HM98K8dq5JMT6ZXOqSHA199SSC7jtylG3M5pRsQCWadoELx 2rpdLZ2rsnFOChELD2NvmD8375VimEXJAEsi5xJkX8bJJcEe7jiK8pKvjn2o4fQGem3u 3aNA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWE7nXT/Zri7AIM41O8SNGr0PxaBHWfZArshPZtpBwOFrMSb5o0uv4bl/0igT22g/fRccDDTvWc5HYF@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YydLdsnb8gTyWcPQnYNYAeyAazOA6To6Zq1nQGUSgiXKfzij+pS qLEJiPFZczWgK4pRjiGVa4L6V54sYFBvDeEP5GuvmAywZ3/yNR13iLBM X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuQ0ZqKyGJLXTr/7gCrFmgBBK77fB4zI95VtQl62rrYHzPmJHGSmrh51U3kV4e +RP+YhQAEZTcW4HHV9BfIwReei0ESAlYIQRs1DfexfIX2j9tiPtM4Rk64GqFCCX2YF3mG2+3erW vIOEcKyGwBVQ7Ww1e0qZ++PTQNu2KrPrtYtYpkq2VeoX/GG+mMaXluHQS+7We7yjLXW30QkYAQK 2wYvwXbyFjDsHtqlQt3vjQOUBsLvrQsA3jpY43Uv0edf7QNDLiiFRbl9TObifkKo+JQQ3AjeT2M ymEXS6m1OON973LSaGOmqL4prCdMlR06HaDuZxmZE8celfEtmySbXmgI+P4R/a9KbDdLwUaAbsJ mGPB3IJag9J1vHJtitYYB2zs1AoiqWkHJ3hTLcBeoNltK35nZaZTKfLS3D9ewgucBIohrtH4NPT /62EHWYiOAMWg/VipbqZqCK/bZ5duPQtLAhAA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEL6ii9KnkIQBAerVn0Vg+xnY1ZhmA6A7rv/13jR+aG1nOdbS7HiWtqv1Golb0GwzDp3Xs8nQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2887:b0:32e:5cba:ae26 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-33bcf8fa1aamr1327937a91.23.1760648748582; Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.0.242] ([192.19.161.250]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 41be03b00d2f7-b6a22b7a625sm3812966a12.24.2025.10.16.14.05.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <565422eb-d5fc-4b84-9a8b-6f36df39b8e2@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 14:09:23 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] irqchip/plic: add support for UltraRISC DP1000 PLIC To: Lucas Zampieri , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Charles Mirabile , Thomas Gleixner , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Paul Walmsley , Samuel Holland , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alexandre Ghiti , Vivian Wang , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Zhang Xincheng References: <20251016084301.27670-1-lzampier@redhat.com> <20251016084301.27670-4-lzampier@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bo Gan In-Reply-To: <20251016084301.27670-4-lzampier@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Lucas, Please see my comments below. On 10/16/25 01:42, Lucas Zampieri wrote: > From: Charles Mirabile > > Add a new compatible for the plic found in UltraRISC DP1000 with a quirk to > work around a known hardware bug with IRQ claiming in the UR-CP100 cores. > > When claiming an interrupt on UR-CP100 cores, all other interrupts must be > disabled before the claim register is accessed to prevent incorrect > handling of the interrupt. This is a hardware bug in the CP100 core > implementation, not specific to the DP1000 SoC. > > When the PLIC_QUIRK_CP100_CLAIM_REGISTER_ERRATUM flag is present, a specialized > handler (plic_handle_irq_cp100) saves the enable state of all interrupts, > disables all interrupts except for the first pending one before reading the > claim register, and then restores the interrupts before further processing of > the claimed interrupt continues. > > The driver matches on "ultrarisc,cp100-plic" to apply the quirk to all > SoCs using UR-CP100 cores, regardless of the specific SoC implementation. > This has no impact on other platforms. > > Co-developed-by: Zhang Xincheng > Signed-off-by: Zhang Xincheng > Signed-off-by: Charles Mirabile > Acked-by: Samuel Holland > Signed-off-by: Lucas Zampieri > --- > drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 93 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c > index bf69a4802b71..0428e9f3423d 100644 > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ > #define CONTEXT_ENABLE_BASE 0x2000 > #define CONTEXT_ENABLE_SIZE 0x80 > > +#define PENDING_BASE 0x1000 > + > /* > * Each hart context has a set of control registers associated with it. Right > * now there's only two: a source priority threshold over which the hart will > @@ -63,6 +65,7 @@ > #define PLIC_ENABLE_THRESHOLD 0 > > #define PLIC_QUIRK_EDGE_INTERRUPT 0 > +#define PLIC_QUIRK_CP100_CLAIM_REGISTER_ERRATUM 1 > > struct plic_priv { > struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; > @@ -394,6 +397,89 @@ static void plic_handle_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > chained_irq_exit(chip, desc); > } > > +static bool cp100_isolate_pending_irq(int nr_irq_groups, u32 ie[], > + void __iomem *pending, > + void __iomem *enable) > +{ > + u32 pending_irqs = 0; > + int i, j; > + > + /* Look for first pending interrupt */ > + for (i = 0; i < nr_irq_groups; i++) { > + pending_irqs = ie[i] & readl_relaxed(pending + i * sizeof(u32)); > + if (pending_irqs) > + break; No need to start from group 0. Only readl on the group with ie[i] != 0 > + } > + > + if (!pending_irqs) > + return false; > + > + /* Disable all interrupts but the first pending one */ > + for (j = 0; j < nr_irq_groups; j++) { > + u32 new_mask = 0; > + > + if (j == i) { > + /* Extract mask with lowest set bit */ > + new_mask = (pending_irqs & -pending_irqs); > + } > + > + writel_relaxed(new_mask, enable + j * sizeof(u32)); There's no need to write the register if the value isn't changing. You can check new_mask with the value in ie[]. > + } > + > + return true; > +} > + > +static irq_hw_number_t cp100_get_hwirq(struct plic_handler *handler, > + void __iomem *claim) > +{ > + int nr_irq_groups = DIV_ROUND_UP(handler->priv->nr_irqs, 32); > + void __iomem *pending = handler->priv->regs + PENDING_BASE; > + void __iomem *enable = handler->enable_base; > + irq_hw_number_t hwirq = 0; > + int i; > + > + guard(raw_spinlock)(&handler->enable_lock); > + > + /* Save current interrupt enable state */ > + for (i = 0; i < nr_irq_groups; i++) > + handler->enable_save[i] = readl_relaxed(enable + i * sizeof(u32)); Here we need to read all the enabled bits from HW register. What about if we keep the handler->enable_save in sync with HW? I.e., enable_save tracks the HW enable registers and we maintain it per each irq toggle. In this way, we don't need to read them at all. We'll introduce more overhead with irq_toggle, but they are not frequent. Thus, we can move this reading of ie[] away from hot-path. > + > + if (!cp100_isolate_pending_irq(nr_irq_groups, handler->enable_save, pending, enable)) > + return 0; > + > + hwirq = readl(claim); Possibly missing a io barrier. readl isn't going to enforce the ordering of writel_relaxed above and itself. There could be other barriers missing. Please check. > + > + /* Restore previous state */ > + for (i = 0; i < nr_irq_groups; i++) > + writel_relaxed(handler->enable_save[i], enable + i * sizeof(u32)); > + > + return hwirq; > +} > + > +static void plic_handle_irq_cp100(struct irq_desc *desc) > +{ > + struct plic_handler *handler = this_cpu_ptr(&plic_handlers); > + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc); > + void __iomem *claim = handler->hart_base + CONTEXT_CLAIM; > + irq_hw_number_t hwirq; > + > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!handler->present); > + > + chained_irq_enter(chip, desc); > + > + while ((hwirq = cp100_get_hwirq(handler, claim))) { > + int err = generic_handle_domain_irq(handler->priv->irqdomain, hwirq); > + > + if (unlikely(err)) { > + pr_warn_ratelimited("%pfwP: can't find mapping for hwirq %lu\n", > + handler->priv->fwnode, hwirq); > + } > + } > + > + chained_irq_exit(chip, desc); > +} > + > static void plic_set_threshold(struct plic_handler *handler, u32 threshold) > { > /* priority must be > threshold to trigger an interrupt */ > @@ -430,6 +516,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id plic_match[] = { > .data = (const void *)BIT(PLIC_QUIRK_EDGE_INTERRUPT) }, > { .compatible = "thead,c900-plic", > .data = (const void *)BIT(PLIC_QUIRK_EDGE_INTERRUPT) }, > + { .compatible = "ultrarisc,cp100-plic", > + .data = (const void *)BIT(PLIC_QUIRK_CP100_CLAIM_REGISTER_ERRATUM) }, > {} > }; > > @@ -664,12 +752,16 @@ static int plic_probe(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode) > } > > if (global_setup) { > + void (*handler_fn)(struct irq_desc *) = plic_handle_irq; > + > + if (test_bit(PLIC_QUIRK_CP100_CLAIM_REGISTER_ERRATUM, &handler->priv->plic_quirks)) > + handler_fn = plic_handle_irq_cp100; > + > /* Find parent domain and register chained handler */ > domain = irq_find_matching_fwnode(riscv_get_intc_hwnode(), DOMAIN_BUS_ANY); > if (domain) > plic_parent_irq = irq_create_mapping(domain, RV_IRQ_EXT); > if (plic_parent_irq) > - irq_set_chained_handler(plic_parent_irq, plic_handle_irq); > + irq_set_chained_handler(plic_parent_irq, handler_fn); > > cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_IRQ_SIFIVE_PLIC_STARTING, > "irqchip/sifive/plic:starting", My rationale of the above comments is to achieve minimal overhead with this "read pending[] -> disable IE[] -> claim -> enable IE[]" approach. In general, the fewer interrupts enabled on a hart, the lower the overhead. If there's only 1 interrupt enabled for a give hart, then there's zero reading/writing of IE[], and you can further optimize away the reading of pending register. If you chose to use enable_save to track HW as I've described above, we should document it well, because enable_save is only used by suspend/resume without this quirk. I'd imagine that if the user truly want to avoid the overhead of this quirk, they can chose to spread out the irq groups onto different harts to alleviate the slow down, or better isolate a single irq to a given hart, and we should make it possible. Feel free to point out any of my misunderstandings. Bo