From: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] PCI/MSI: Add hooks to populate the msi_domain field
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:04:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54B5CE9E.4030801@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54B52168.3080600@arm.com>
>>> +static void pci_set_msi_domain(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * If no domain has been set through the pcibios callback,
>>> + * inherit the default from the bus device.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!dev_get_msi_domain(&dev->dev))
>>> + dev_set_msi_domain(&dev->dev,
>>> + dev_get_msi_domain(&dev->bus->dev));
>>> +}
>>
>> Hi Marc, now we have two ways to associate the pci_dev and msi_domain, right ?
>>
>> 1. associate pci_dev and msi_domain in pcibios_add_device() like x86.
>>
>> 2. Inherit msi_domain from pci_dev->bus.
>>
>> My question is if all pci devices inherit msi_domain from the pci_bus,
>> so all pci devices under same pci host bridge have the same msi_domain assigned by
>> weak pcibios_set_phb_msi_domain(). So why not save the pci host bridge specific
>> msi_domain in pci_host_bridge. Then pci devices could inherit the msi_domain from
>> its pci host bridge directly, no need to involve pci bus in the assignment.
>
> But then, you would end-up maintaining another msi_domain field inside
> the pci_host bridge structure. What do you gain by doing so?
My original thought is holding msi_domain field inside the pci_host_bridge is
more simple than every bus maintaining the msi_domain, but this proposal has a
disadvantage that sometimes we must setup for every device. I checked x86 DMAR code,
and found most DMAR would report PCIe root port device associating the msi_domain, not the EP device.
So pcibios_add_device could only associate these bridge device msi_domain, and its children
devices will propagate from their parent bus(get msi_domain from its bridge).
So now I agree your idea, please forgive my nagging :)
Thanks!
Yijing.
>
> With this series, msi_domain has the nice property of always being tied
> to a device (and struct pci_bus always has a device). We always have
> phb->bus->dev.msi_domain within reach, and architecture code can decide
> to override it on a per-device basis.
>
> What else do you need? What am I missing from your proposal?
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
--
Thanks!
Yijing
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-14 2:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-08 17:06 [PATCH v2 0/8] Introducing per-device MSI domain Marc Zyngier
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] device core: Introduce per-device MSI domain pointer Marc Zyngier
2015-01-15 20:35 ` Stuart Yoder
2015-01-16 19:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-01-19 2:10 ` Jiang Liu
2015-01-20 17:17 ` Stuart Yoder
2015-01-21 1:34 ` Jiang Liu
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] PCI/MSI: Add hooks to populate the msi_domain field Marc Zyngier
2015-01-13 12:34 ` Yijing Wang
2015-01-13 13:45 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-01-14 2:04 ` Yijing Wang [this message]
2015-01-14 2:06 ` Yijing Wang
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] PCI/MSI: of: Add support for OF-provided msi_domain Marc Zyngier
2015-01-14 8:17 ` Yun Wu (Abel)
2015-01-14 10:19 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] PCI/MSI: of: Allow msi_domain lookup using the PHB node Marc Zyngier
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] PCI/MSI: Let pci_msi_get_domain use struct device's msi_domain Marc Zyngier
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] irqchip: GICv2m: Get rid of struct msi_controller Marc Zyngier
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] irqchip: gicv3-its: " Marc Zyngier
2015-01-08 17:06 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] PCI/MSI: Drop domain field from msi_controller Marc Zyngier
2015-01-27 0:45 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] Introducing per-device MSI domain Bjorn Helgaas
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=54B5CE9E.4030801@huawei.com \
--to=wangyijing@huawei.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).