Re: [PATCH 4/4] soc: marvell: rvu-pf: Handle function level reset (FLR) IRQs for VFs

[Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com>]

Hi Anshumali!

On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 16:53 +0530, Anshumali Gaur wrote:
> Added PCIe FLR interrupt handler for VFs. When FLR is triggered for VFs,
> parent PF gets an interrupt. PF creates a mbox message and sends it to
> RVU Admin function (AF). AF cleans up all the resources attached to that
> specific VF and acks the PF that FLR is handled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anshumali Gaur <agaur@marvell.com>
> ---

[]

> diff --git a/drivers/soc/marvell/rvu_gen_pf/gen_pf.c b/drivers/soc/marvell/rvu_gen_pf/gen_pf.c
> index 624c55123a19..e2e7c11dd85d 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/marvell/rvu_gen_pf/gen_pf.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/marvell/rvu_gen_pf/gen_pf.c
> @@ -691,6 +700,211 @@ static int rvu_gen_pf_register_pfvf_mbox_intr(struct gen_pf_dev *pfdev, int numv
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static void rvu_gen_pf_flr_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct flr_work *flrwork = container_of(work, struct flr_work, work);
> +	struct gen_pf_dev *pfdev = flrwork->pfdev;
> +	struct mbox *mbox = &pfdev->mbox;
> +	struct msg_req *req;
> +	int vf, reg = 0;
> +
> +	vf = flrwork - pfdev->flr_wrk;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&mbox->lock);
> +	req = gen_pf_mbox_alloc_msg_vf_flr(mbox);

So this function want's to be a product of "M" macro from patch 2?
But does it really happen?

> +	if (!req) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&mbox->lock);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	req->hdr.pcifunc &= RVU_PFVF_FUNC_MASK;

Did you mean "req->hdr.pcifunc &= ~RVU_PFVF_FUNC_MASK;"?

> +	req->hdr.pcifunc |= (vf + 1) & RVU_PFVF_FUNC_MASK;
> +
> +	if (!rvu_gen_pf_sync_mbox_msg(&pfdev->mbox)) {
> +		if (vf >= 64) {
> +			reg = 1;
> +			vf = vf - 64;
> +		}
> +		/* clear transcation pending bit */
> +		writeq(BIT_ULL(vf), pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFTRPENDX(reg));
> +		writeq(BIT_ULL(vf), pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFFLR_INT_ENA_W1SX(reg));
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&mbox->lock);
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t rvu_gen_pf_me_intr_handler(int irq, void *pf_irq)
> +{
> +	struct gen_pf_dev *pfdev = (struct gen_pf_dev *)pf_irq;
> +	int vf, reg, num_reg = 1;
> +	u64 intr;
> +
> +	if (pfdev->total_vfs > 64)
> +		num_reg = 2;
> +
> +	for (reg = 0; reg < num_reg; reg++) {
> +		intr = readq(pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFME_INTX(reg));
> +		if (!intr)
> +			continue;
> +		for (vf = 0; vf < 64; vf++) {
> +			if (!(intr & BIT_ULL(vf)))
> +				continue;
> +			/* clear trpend bit */
> +			writeq(BIT_ULL(vf), pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFTRPENDX(reg));
> +			/* clear interrupt */
> +			writeq(BIT_ULL(vf), pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFME_INTX(reg));
> +		}
> +	}

Should anything else have been performed in the IRQ handler besides acknowledging the
IRQ request?

> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t rvu_gen_pf_flr_intr_handler(int irq, void *pf_irq)
> +{
> +	struct gen_pf_dev *pfdev = (struct gen_pf_dev *)pf_irq;
> +	int reg, dev, vf, start_vf, num_reg = 1;
> +	u64 intr;
> +
> +	if (pfdev->total_vfs > 64)
> +		num_reg = 2;
> +
> +	for (reg = 0; reg < num_reg; reg++) {
> +		intr = readq(pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFFLR_INTX(reg));
> +		if (!intr)
> +			continue;
> +		start_vf = 64 * reg;
> +		for (vf = 0; vf < 64; vf++) {
> +			if (!(intr & BIT_ULL(vf)))
> +				continue;
> +			dev = vf + start_vf;
> +			queue_work(pfdev->flr_wq, &pfdev->flr_wrk[dev].work);
> +			/* Clear interrupt */
> +			writeq(BIT_ULL(vf), pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFFLR_INTX(reg));
> +			/* Disable the interrupt */
> +			writeq(BIT_ULL(vf), pfdev->reg_base + RVU_PF_VFFLR_INT_ENA_W1CX(reg));
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}

[]

-- 
Alexander Sverdlin.