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
Hi Thomas,

On 21/11/14 01:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Yijing Wang wrote:
>> On 2014/11/21 0:31, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Bjorn, Yijing,
>>>
>>> I've just realized that patch c167caf8d174 (PCI/MSI: Remove useless
>>> bus->msi assignment) completely breaks MSI on arm64 when using the new
>>> MSI stacked domain:
>>
>> Sorry, this is my first part to refactor MSI related code, now how
>> to get pci msi_controller depends arch
>> functions(pcibios_msi_controller() or arch_setup_msi_irq()), we are
>> working on generic pci_host_bridge, after that, we could eventually
>> eliminate MSI arch functions and find pci dev 's msi controller by
>> pci_host_bridge->get_msi_controller().
>
> The main question is why you think that pci_host_bridge is the proper
> place to store that information.
>
> On x86 we have DMAR units associated to a single device. Each DMAR
> unit is a seperate MSI irq domain.
>
> Can you guarantee that the pci_host_bridge is the right point to
> provide the association of the device to the irq domain?
>
> So the real question is:
>
> What is the association level requirement to properly identify the
> irqdomain for a specific device on any given architecture with and
> without IOMMU, interrupt redirection etc.
>
> To be honest: I don't know.
>
> My gut feeling tells me that it's at the device level, but I really
> leave that decision to the experts in that field.

Given the above requirement (single device associated to DMAR), I can
see two possibilities:
- we represent DMAR as a single PCI bus: feels a bit artificial
- we move the MSI domain to the device, as you suggested.

The second one seems a lot more attractive to me. What I don't
completely see is how the host bridge has all required the knowledge.

Also, it is not clear to me what is the advantage of getting rid of the
MSI controller. By doing so, we loose an important part of the topology
information (the irq domain is another level of abstraction).

Thanks,

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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-21 12:01    [W:0.100 / U:2.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site