Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] irqchip: ti-sci-inta: Add support for Interrupt Aggregator driver

[Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>]

Hi Marc,

On 11/5/2018 10:14 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 05/11/18 16:20, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On Monday 05 November 2018 09:06 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 05/11/18 08:08, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> On Monday 29 October 2018 06:34 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday 28 October 2018 07:01 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Lokesh,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 21:19:41 +0100,
>>>>>> Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [..snip..]
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * ti_sci_inta_register_event() - Register a event to an interrupt aggregator
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @dev:	Device pointer to source generating the event
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @src_id:	TISCI device ID of the event source
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @src_index:	Event source index within the device.
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @virq:	Linux Virtual IRQ number
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @flags:	Corresponding IRQ flags
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @ack_needed:	If explicit clearing of event is required.
>>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * Creates a new irq and attaches to IA domain if virq is not specified
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * else attaches the event to vint corresponding to virq.
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * When using TISCI within the client drivers, source indexes are always
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * generated dynamically and cannot be represented in DT. So client
>>>>>>>>>>>> + * drivers should call this API instead of platform_get_irq().
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NAK. Either this fits in the standard model, or we adapt the standard
>>>>>>>>>>> model to catter for your particular use case. But we don't define a new,
>>>>>>>>>>> TI specific API.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have a hunch that if the IDs are generated dynamically, then the model
>>>>>>>>>>> we use for MSIs would fit this thing. I also want to understand what
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> hmm..I haven't thought about using MSI. Will try to explore it. But
>>>>>>>>>> the "struct msi_msg" is not applicable in this case as device does not
>>>>>>>>>> write to a specific location.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to. You can perfectly ignore the address field and
>>>>>>>>> only be concerned with the data. We already have MSI users that do not
>>>>>>>>> need programming of the doorbell address, just the data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just one more clarification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First let me explain the IRQ routes a bit deeply. As I said earlier
>>>>>>> there are three ways in which IRQ can flow in AM65x SoC
>>>>>>> 1) Device directly connected to GIC
>>>>>>> 	- Device IRQ --> GIC
>>>>>>> 2) Device connected to INTR.
>>>>>>> 	- Device IRQ --> INTR --> GIC
>>>>>>> 3) Devices connected to INTA.
>>>>>>> 	- Device IRQ --> INTA --> INTR --> GIC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 and 2 are straight forward and we use DT for IRQ
>>>>>>> representation. Coming to 3 the trickier part is that Input to INTA
>>>>>>> and output from INTA and dynamically managed. To be more specific:
>>>>>>> - By hardware design there are certain set of physical global
>>>>>>> events(interrupts) attached to an INTA. Out of which a certain range
>>>>>>> are assigned to the current linux host that can be queried from
>>>>>>> system-controller.
>>>>>>> - Similarly out of all the INTA outputs(referenced as vints) a certain
>>>>>>> range can be used by the current linux host.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So for configuring an IRQ route in case 3, the following steps are needed:
>>>>>>> - Device id and device resource index for which the interrupt is needed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THat is no different from a PCI device for example, where we need the
>>>>>> requester ID and the number of the interrupt in the MSI-X table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - A free event id from the range assigned to the INTA in this host context
>>>>>>> - A free vint from the range assigned to the INTA in this host context
>>>>>>> - A free gic IRQ from the range assigned to the INTR in this host context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    From what I understand of the driver, at least some of that is under
>>>>>> the responsibility of the firmware, right? Or is the driver under
>>>>>> control of all three parameters? To be honest, it doesn't really
>>>>>
>>>>> Driver should control all three parameters.
>>>>>
>>>>>> matter, as the as far as the kernel is concerned, the irqchip drivers
>>>>>> are free to deal with the routing anyway they want.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct, that's my understanding as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the above information, linux should send a message to
>>>>>>> system-controller using TISCI protocol. After policing the given
>>>>>>> information, system-controller does the following:
>>>>>>> - Attaches the interrupt(INTA input) to the device resource index
>>>>>>> - Muxes the interrupt(INTA input) to corresponding vint(INTA output)
>>>>>>> - Muxes the vint(INTR input) to GIC irq(INTR output).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't there a 1:1 mapping between *used* INTR inputs and outputs?
>>>>>> Since INTR is a router, there is no real muxing. I assume that the
>>>>>> third point above is just a copy-paste error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, my bad. INTR is just a router and no read muxing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For grouping of interrupts, the same vint number is to be passed to
>>>>>>> system-controller for all the requests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keeping all the above in mind, I see the following as software IRQ
>>>>>>> Domain Hierarchy:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) INTA multi MSI --> 2)INTA  -->3) MSI --> 4) INTR  -->5) GIC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> INTA driver has to set a chained IRQ using virq allocated from its
>>>>>>> parent MSI. This is to differentiate the grouped interrupts within
>>>>>>> INTA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Inorder to cover the above two MSI domains, a new bus driver has to be
>>>>>>> created as I couldn't find a fit with the existing bus drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the above approach make sense? Please correct me if i am wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this can be further simplified, as you seem to assume that
>>>>>> dynamic allocation implies MSI. This is not the case. You can
>>>>>> perfectly use dynamically allocated interrupts and still not use MSIs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> INTA is indeed a chained interrupt controller, as it may mux several
>>>>>> inputs onto a single output. But the output of INTA is not an MSI. It
>>>>>> is just a regular interrupt that can allocated when the first mapping
>>>>>> gets established.
>>>>>
>>>>> okay. I guess it can just be done using irq_create_fwspec_mapping().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am facing an issue with this approach as I am trying to call
>>>> irq_create_fwspec_mapping() from alloc callback of INTA driver. During
>>>> allocation the function call flow looks like:
>>>>
>>>> inta_msi_domain_alloc_irqs()
>>>> 	msi_domain_alloc_irqs()
>>>> 		__irq_domain_alloc_irqs()
>>>> 			*mutex_lock(&irq_domain_mutex);*
>>>> 			irq_domain_alloc_irqs_hierarchy()
>>>> 				ti_sci_inta_irq_domain_alloc()
>>>> 					if (first event in group)
>>>> 							irq_create_fwspec_mapping()
>>>> 								irq_find_matching_fwspec()
>>>> 									*mutex_lock(&irq_domain_mutex);*
>>>> 									
>>>>
>>>> The mutex_lock is called again if INTR IRQ gets allocated in alloc callback of
>>>> INTA driver. So I am clearly calling irq_create_fwspec_mapping() from a wrong place.
>>>
>>> The real issue is that you're are calling irq_create_fwspec_mapping at
>>> all. This is only supposed to be called by the high level code, not an
>>> irqchip driver in the middle of its own allocation.
>>>
>>> The right API to use is irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent(), which calls into
>>> the parent domain allocation. See the multiple uses in the tree already.
>>
>> But irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent() doesn't create a new IRQ mapping. Or your 
>> suggestion is that when first event mapping gets established in the group, use 
>> the same Linux virq number to allocate the parent interrupts?
> 
> I had already forgotten that your INTA is the multiplexer in your system.
> 
> No, using the same virq is completely wrong, as you must have a unique
> irq for each of the outputs lines of your INTA.
> 
> One solution would be to pre-allocate all the interrupts for the output
> lines at probe time, so that you don't have to do much when the INTA
> irqs get allocated.

Yes, that is one possibility but all the while I am trying to avoid
that. Because the number of INTA outputs can be greater than gic IRQs
assigned to this IP.

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh