lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/sfi: fix ioapic gsi range
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:22:18 -0700
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> jacob pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:41:45 -0700
> > ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Even if sfi is never implemented on a platform where that kind of
> >> hardware exists, the current sfi code is setup to coexist
> >> simultaneously in the kernel with all of the infrastructure of
> >> other platforms where those kinds of devices exist. Which means
> >> there can be drivers compiled into your kernel that make
> >> assumptions about special properties of the irqs 0-15.
> >>
> > SFI code can be compiled in with ACPI at the same time but at
> > runtime there is only one used, ACPI take precedence. So there
> > wouldn't be any additional conflict caused by SFI added APIC tables.
> >
> >> As for the question about using legacy_pic to detect the absence of
> >> an irq controller that Peter raised. We can't do that because it
> >> should be possible for an acpi system with all of the legacy
> >> hardware to exist without needing to implement an i8259, or ever
> >> run in the historical interrupt delivery mode of pcs.
> > In your case, I don't understand how would it change the
> > calculation of irq mapping. Even if you don't use i8259 on a x86 PC
> > platform, you still have NR_LEGACY_IRQS=legacy_pic->nr_legacy_irqs.
> >
> > On the other side, use NR_LEGACY_IRQS breaks the existing code for
> > Moorestown in terms of irq-gsi lookup and nr_irqs_gsi.
>
> Is this code merged where I should have fixed it in my patchset?
>
yes, merged.
> We went through this with acpi having an identity mapping of irq to
> gsi mapping and the result is that we (a) developed weird platform
> specific hooks for things that should have been handled by generic
> code, and on other systems we lost access to 16 irqs.
>
> It took probably 10 years to sort the acpi irq handling out. What
> I have learned along the way is:
> - Sharing irq in software is madness, so a one to one mapping with
> hardware irq is required.
> - An identity mapping with gsis is nice but we can't count on the
> hardware designers or the spec designers always doing sane and
> reasonable things so not guaranteeing a particular mapping is
> important.
>
> If I have actually broken any sfi drivers because you assumed a
> particular we are back where we were with ISA, and still haven't
> completely escaped. The abstraction layer should provide all of
> the mapping so drivers only see linux irq numbers.
>
> Eric
>

[jacob pan]

In arch/x86/kernel/mrst.c we parse SFI MTMR table then
add timer irqs to mp_irqs. what is broken by this patch is
pin_2_irq() lookup for the legacy irq range since we want
NR_IRQS_LEGACY to be 0 on Moorestown. We do have the assumption that
mp_irqs from SFI is 1:1 mapped to IRQs.

Doing this can fix the problem, but you mentioned you have to use
NR_IRQS_LEGACY, which i still don't understand.

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
@@ -1032,7 +1032,7 @@ static int pin_2_irq(int idx, int apic, int pin)
} else {
u32 gsi = mp_gsi_routing[apic].gsi_base + pin;

- if (gsi >= NR_IRQS_LEGACY)
+ if (gsi >= legacy_pic->nr_legacy_irqs)
irq = gsi;


The second problem is nr_irqs_gsi gets an extra 16 for Moorestown.
Similarly, we need this in probe_nr_irqs_gsi:
- nr = gsi_top + NR_IRQS_LEGACY;
+ nr = gsi_top + legacy_pic->nr_legacy_irqs;


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-09 00:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site