lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/sfi: fix ioapic gsi range
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:

> On 06/07/2010 05:24 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> writes:
>>
>>> SFI based platforms should have zero based gsi_base for IOAPICs found in SFI
>>> tables. The current code sets gsi_base starting from 1 when registering ioapic.
>>> The result is that Moorestown platform would have wrong mp_gsi_routing for each
>>> ioapic.
>>
>> Yes starting at 1 is a bug.
>>
>>> Background:
>>> In Moorestown/Medfield platforms, there is no legacy IRQs, all gsis and irqs
>>> are one to one mapped, including those < 16. Specifically, IRQ0 and IRQ1 are
>>> used for per-cpu timers. So without this patch, IOAPIC pin to IRQ mapping is
>>> off by one.
>>
>> The patch looks mostly reasonable the comment is wrong.
>>
>> You may not use a 1-1 mapping if you don't have legacy irqs. Linux
>> irqs 0-15 are the ISA irqs you may not use those irq numbers for
>> something different on any architecture, but especially not on x86.
>> The gsi numbers are firmware specific and you may treat however you want.
>>
>> Does the following patch work for you?
>>
>> It appears I goofed when it was pointed out that gsi_end was inclusive and
>> didn't change the initialize.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>> index 33f3563..5de84e5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ int nr_ioapics;
>> struct mp_ioapic_gsi mp_gsi_routing[MAX_IO_APICS];
>>
>> /* The last gsi number used */
>> -u32 gsi_end;
>> +u32 gsi_end = -1;
>>
>
> This seems like asking for signedness problems, especially since this is
> used in range compares all the time. The real problem here is that
> gsi_end is inclusive, which is almost always the wrong thing for the
> endpoint of a range. Instead we should have the last number used plus
> one; perhaps it should be called gsi_next or gsi_free.

That does sound better. Let me see if I can find a few minutes to implement
it that way.

Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-08 03:13    [W:0.129 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site