lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains
Yijing,

On 21/11/14 01:54, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> Thomas, let me know if you want to do that. I suppose we could add a new
>>> patch to add it back, but that would leave bisection broken for the
>>> interval between c167caf8d174 and the patch that adds it back.
>>
>> Fortunately my irq/irqdomain branch is not immutable yet. So we have
>> no problem at that point. I can rebase on your branch until tomorrow
>> night. Or just rebase on mainline and we sort out the merge conflicts
>> later, i.e. delegate them to Linus so his job of pulling stuff gets
>> not completely boring.
>
> Hi Thomas, sorry for my introducing the broken.
>
>>
>> What I'm more worried about is whether this intended change is going
>> to inflict a problem on Jiangs intention to deduce the MSI irq domain
>> from the device, which we really need for making DMAR work w/o going
>> through loops and hoops.
>>
>> I have limited knowledge about the actual scope of iommu (DMAR) units
>> versus device/bus/host-controllers, so I would appreciate a proper
>> explanation for that from you or Jiang or both.
>
> In my personal opinion, if it's not necessary, we should not put stuff
> into pci_dev or pci_bus. If we plan to save msi_controller in pci_bus or
> pci_dev.
> I have a proposal, I would be appreciated if you could give some comments.
> First we refactor pci_host_bridge to make a generic
> pci_host_bridge, then we could save pci domain in it to eliminate
> arch specific functions. I aslo wanted to save msi_controller as
> pci domain, but now Jiang refactor hierarchy irq domain, and
> pci devices under the same pci host bridge may need to associate
> to different msi_controllers.
>
> So I want to associate a msi_controller finding ops with generic pci_host_bridge,
> then every pci device could find its msi_controller/irq_domain by a
> common function
>
> E.g
>
> struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> {
> struct msi_controller *ctrl;
> struct pci_host_bridge *host = find_pci_host_bridge(pdev->bus);
> if (host && host->pci_get_msi_controller)
> ctrl = pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>
> return ctrl;
> }
>
> If I miss something, please let me know, thanks.

That feels slightly convoluted for something that should be a very
simple operation. Does this mean you're trying to represent a situation
where:
- a single host bridge has multiple MSI controllers,
- this bridge serves multiple busses,
- devices on the same bus can talk to different MSI controllers?

That would be the only case where the current way we pass the
msi_controller around wouldn't work.

If that's what you're trying to do, I can see how this work, but I'd
suggest you put that infrastructure in place before tearing down the
existing one. This means being having support at the host-bridge level
and reasonable defaults for the non-complicated case where bus->msi is
exactly what you want.

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-21 11:41    [W:0.077 / U:8.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site