Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754379AbaKRNvq (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:51:46 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:27084 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754248AbaKRNvn (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:51:43 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,410,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="638973037" Message-ID: <546B4EE9.7000307@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:51:37 +0800 From: Jiang Liu Organization: Intel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Yun Wu (Abel)" , Thomas Gleixner CC: LKML , Bjorn Helgaas , Grant Likely , Marc Zyngier , Yingjoe Chen , Yijing Wang Subject: Re: [patch 08/16] genirq: Introduce callback irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg References: <20141112133941.647950773@linutronix.de> <20141112134120.474411359@linutronix.de> <546B10DF.7020807@huawei.com> <546B4A91.6080004@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <546B4A91.6080004@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2014/11/18 21:33, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote: > On 2014/11/18 18:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote: >>> On 2014/11/12 21:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>> struct irq_chip { >>>> @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ struct irq_chip { >>>> void (*irq_release_resources)(struct irq_data *data); >>>> >>>> void (*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg); >>>> + void (*irq_write_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg); >>> >>> Hmm... It's really weird. >>> I don't think it's the interrupt controllers' responsibility to write messages >>> for all the endpoint devices since the methods of configuring message registers >>> may different between these devices. And theoretically, the endpoint devices >>> themselves should take the responsibility to configure their message registers. >>> To say the least, the write_msg callback here still need to call some certain >>> interfaces provided by the corresponding device. >>> >>> There would be lots of ARM new devices capable of sending message >>> based interrupts to interrupt controllers, does all the drivers of >>> the devices need to expose a write_msg callback to interrupt >>> controllers? >> >> Well, writing the message _IS_ part of the interrupt controller. >> >> So in order to enable non PCI based MSI we want to have generic >> infrastructure with minimal per device/device class callbacks and of >> course you need to provide that callback for your special device. >> >> We already have non PCI based MSI controllers in x86 today and we need >> to handle the whole stuff with tons of copied coded extra for each of >> those. So consolidating it into common infrastructure allows us to get >> rid of the pointless copied code and reduce the per device effort to >> the relevant hardware specific callbacks. irq_write_msi_msg being one >> of those. >> > > At least, we have the same goal. > I will illustrate my thoughts by an example. > The current code is something like: > > Device A > ======== > void A_write_msg() { ... } > > Group B > (a group of devices behave same on writing messages, i.e. PCI) > ======= > void B_write_msg() { ... } > > Controller > ========== > irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg () { > if (A) > A_write_msg(); > if (B) > B_write_msg(); > } > > It's horrible when new devices come out, since we need to modify the > controller part for each new device. > What I suggested is: > > MSI Core > ======== > struct msi_ops { .write_msg, }; > struct msi_desc { .msi_ops, }; > > write_msg() { > X = get_dev(); > irq_chip.compose_msg(X); // IRQ chips' responsibility > X_msi_ops.write_msg(); // nothing to do with IRQ chips > } > > Device A > ======== > void A_write_msg() { ... } > A_msi_ops.write_msg = A_write_msg; > > Group B > ======= > void B_write_msg() { ... } > B_msi_ops.write_msg = B_write_msg; > > Please correct me if I misunderstood anything. Please take a look at following file, which uses the common MSI framework to support PCI, DMAR and HPET interrupt on x86. https://github.com/jiangliu/linux/blob/irqdomain/p2v7/arch/x86/kernel/apic/msi.c Regards! Gerry > > Thanks, > Abel > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/