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

在 2014/11/22 1:31, Bjorn Helgaas 写道:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:54:40AM +0800, 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.
> I think this is getting ahead of ourselves. Let's make small steps.
> We currently have the msi_controller pointer in struct pci_bus. That was
> there even before your series. Your series added pci_msi_controller(),
> and I reworked it so it looks like this:
> static struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
> struct msi_controller *msi_ctrl = dev->bus->msi;
> if (msi_ctrl)
> return msi_ctrl;
> return pcibios_msi_controller(dev);
> }
> So now your series basically just removes the ARM add_bus() and
> remove_bus() methods and gets the MSI controller info from the ARM
> pci_sys_data struct instead of from pci_bus. Of course, that assumes that
> on ARM, all devices under a host bridge have the same MSI controller. That
> seems like an unwarranted assumption, but if you want to do it for ARM,
> that's fine with me.

Agree, we could use pci_msi_controller() to find msi_controller for
pci_dev before a
better common way found.

>> 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;
>> }
> You can do this for ARM if you want (and your series already accomplishes
> the same effect, though implemented differently). But I don't think this
> is appropriate for the PCI core.

OK. We need a better solution, not only for arm, also need to consider
arm64 and
other platforms.

> For anybody who is on this thread but not the original, I reworked the
> series slightly, see [1].
> Bjorn
> [1]
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-22 05:41    [W:0.072 / U:0.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site