Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] PCI: Introduce INTx check & mask API

[Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>]

On 25/05/12 00:41, Alex Williamson wrote:

>>> [Found while debugging VFIO on POWER but it is platform independent]
>>>
>>> There is a feature in PCI (>=2.3?) to mask/unmask INTx via PCI_COMMAND and
>>> PCI_STATUS registers.
>>
>> Yes, 2.3 introduced this. Masking is done via command register, checking
>> if the source was the PCI in question via the status register. The
>> latter is important for supporting IRQ sharing - and that's why we
>> introduced this masking API to the PCI layer.
>>> And there is some API to support that (commit a2e27787f893621c5a6b865acf6b7766f8671328).
>>>
>>> I have a network adapter:
>>> 0001:00:01.0 Ethernet controller: Chelsio Communications Inc T310 10GbE Single Port Adapter
>>> 	Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- DisINTx-
>>> 	Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
>>>
>>> pci_intx_mask_supported() reports that the feature is supported for this adapter
>>> BUT the adapter does not set PCI_STATUS_INTERRUPT so pci_check_and_set_intx_mask()
>>> never changes PCI_COMMAND and INTx does not work on it when we use it as VFIO-PCI device.
>>>
>>> If I remove the check of this bit, it works fine as it is called from an interrupt handler and
>>> Status bit check is redundant.
>>>
>>> Opened a spec:
>>> PCI LOCAL BUS SPECIFICATION, REV. 3.0, Table 6-2: Status Register Bits
>>> ===
>>> 3	This read-only bit reflects the state of the interrupt in the
>>> device/function. Only when the Interrupt Disable bit in the command
>>> register is a 0 and this Interrupt Status bit is a 1, will the
>>> device’s/function’s INTx# signal be asserted. Setting the Interrupt
>>>    Disable bit to a 1 has no effect on the state of this bit.
>>> ===
>>> With this adapter, INTx# is asserted but Status bit is still 0.
>>>
>>> Is it mandatory for a device to set Status bit if it supports INTx masking?
>>>
>>> 2 Alex: if it is mandatory, then we need to be able to disable pci_2_3 in VFIO-PCI
>>> somehow.
>>
>> Since PCI 2.3, this bit is mandatory, and it should be independent of
>> the masking bit. The question is, if your device is supposed to support
>> 2.3, thus is just buggy, or if our detection algorithm is unreliable. It
>> basically builds on the assumption that, if we can flip the mask bit,
>> the feature should be present. I guess that is the best we can do. Maybe
>> we can augment this with a blacklist of devices that "support" flipping
>> without actually providing the feature.
> 
> Yep, that's what I'd suggest as well, add a blacklist to
> pci_intx_mask_supported() so this device returns false and we require an
> exclusive interrupt for it.  Thanks,

Okay, here is one for the starter:

aik@vpl2:~$ lspci -s 1:1:0.0
0001:01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Chelsio Communications Inc T310 10GbE Single Port Adapter
aik@vpl2:~$ lspci -ns 1:1:0.0
0001:01:00.0 0200: 1425:0030



-- 
Alexey