Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:206:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp3842297pxj; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztff6asPPD1FV8tTAPXMy7JJlEqOcjQZ0QYDU20MY1orgm3Gm5Wf4ivrtzyIO4Se0W2mWh X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:33a2:: with SMTP id h34mr17705343jav.60.1624286876162; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1624286876; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=tBtkObwg181O88cCxIPZw++0zY2itELutCONUqodG/h8tdBm8TTO9CT9Roe5KMeJjY Jfj8ASGZgRU++SjUc17xqfHvl3PYBQrCZhuvrniu0zlZTSieG2GMIkQCf9myg47dcK+j IaH7Lm18FKv/o6OFa2HOcdnMEUYPh2ltPrRUEFYTU4mdP/d/NerjlKTuN5fwIWkQ8ic0 5A8dHyTkHt5UDwF2vIQZCCIjmo7deP6xPGMEn5FGQ35NTz2lRpOEDTaPwKJNRuCX4jBn LvgFhURCjyuSvs0Ju/1sfOLRznUjSOHY4Z91ZCIDT0Kp+oBxlZNgtXHpAE0ORzU6Mg5a 7J2A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=dzY3FILlEJUmB6SOEBlvOaop9v9yUcKsqGdqOVF6zfw=; b=rjo8GRC6EToXNjkWTdKZkthg/+6kY/qOevKIqqRaliT9j6CqM0rjzBHaZYCwPXbmHf g5ZcxtDNeXE7+TJyoaxAJ1FUGTfa5HqcuYAqfM5Zu2AsXFuJK0iiuEyScu7sBtIxStOq OgwyHpOL+HFEz+suK7/k3OwXPDWdnA1LwLaybnFI8kD8YBfgH7s3umldOQ+xYrYV+pnu bFwc13H5ZkgUCSNBZJkE5fsTWhIFNOXAp2Mbyxk5pVjNrDsHwHl5cAUDyakoDOgSsjYj Uzi/oyWJmTDX2fXoXoOMyOhr7I4chnjP3Mgx0XdBO+EbozaxjxkIg06bU1mjWQrkRnSn BpmQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w2si18665551iop.49.2021.06.21.07.47.43; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230032AbhFUOtV (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:49:21 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:35726 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229747AbhFUOtU (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:49:20 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35629D6E; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 07:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lpieralisi (e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.255]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCBE43F694; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 07:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:47:02 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Sandor Bodo-Merle Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Bjorn Helgaas , Ray Jui , Scott Branden , bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: iproc: Support multi-MSI only on uniprocessor kernel Message-ID: <20210621144702.GD27516@lpieralisi> References: <20210606123044.31250-1-sbodomerle@gmail.com> <20210606123044.31250-2-sbodomerle@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210606123044.31250-2-sbodomerle@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 02:30:44PM +0200, Sandor Bodo-Merle wrote: > The interrupt affinity scheme used by this driver is incompatible with > multi-MSI as it implies moving the doorbell address to that of another MSI > group. This isn't possible for multi-MSI, as all the MSIs must have the > same doorbell address. As such it is restricted to systems with a single > CPU. > > Fixes: fc54bae28818 ("PCI: iproc: Allow allocation of multiple MSIs") > Reported-by: Marc Zyngier > Signed-off-by: Sandor Bodo-Merle > --- > drivers/pci/controller/pcie-iproc-msi.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Can you just resend the series with the very minor changes requested fixed please ? Please carry/apply the review tags as well. Thanks, Lorenzo > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-iproc-msi.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-iproc-msi.c > index 557d93dcb3bc..81b4effeb130 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-iproc-msi.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-iproc-msi.c > @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ static struct irq_chip iproc_msi_irq_chip = { > > static struct msi_domain_info iproc_msi_domain_info = { > .flags = MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_DOM_OPS | MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS | > - MSI_FLAG_MULTI_PCI_MSI | MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSIX, > + MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSIX, > .chip = &iproc_msi_irq_chip, > }; > > @@ -250,6 +250,9 @@ static int iproc_msi_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, > struct iproc_msi *msi = domain->host_data; > int hwirq, i; > > + if (msi->nr_cpus > 1 && nr_irqs > 1) > + return -EINVAL; > + > mutex_lock(&msi->bitmap_lock); > > /* > @@ -540,6 +543,9 @@ int iproc_msi_init(struct iproc_pcie *pcie, struct device_node *node) > mutex_init(&msi->bitmap_lock); > msi->nr_cpus = num_possible_cpus(); > > + if (msi->nr_cpus == 1) > + iproc_msi_domain_info.flags |= MSI_FLAG_MULTI_PCI_MSI; > + > msi->nr_irqs = of_irq_count(node); > if (!msi->nr_irqs) { > dev_err(pcie->dev, "found no MSI GIC interrupt\n"); > -- > 2.31.0 >