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;
Date:   Thu, 05 Aug 2021 09:35:17 +0100
Message-ID: <87wnp0b86y.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@microsoft.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        Boqun Feng <Boqun.Feng@microsoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RFC 1/1] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Add irq domain and chip for Direct LPI without ITS
In-Reply-To: <MW4PR21MB2002860BAED850B2B52D6E2BC0F19@MW4PR21MB2002.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MW4PR21MB2002BA20FA4A8DAA1C27F4C6C0199@MW4PR21MB2002.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
        <87a6mt2jke.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <MW4PR21MB2002E51429F7E13B61A34FFEC0E89@MW4PR21MB2002.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
        <87tuka24kj.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <MW4PR21MB20027EAC23E8053210364E2BC0F09@MW4PR21MB2002.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
        <b2dea108-9166-dc9d-abd0-d22491f78568@arm.com>
        <87r1f9wooc.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <MW4PR21MB2002860BAED850B2B52D6E2BC0F19@MW4PR21MB2002.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 04 Aug 2021 21:10:43 +0100,
Sunil Muthuswamy <sunilmut@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Marc and Robin for clarifying. I see and understand the point
> about having explicit MSI mappings in the firmware specification for
> Direct LPIs for generic hardware support.
> 
> Hey Mark

I assume this is for me?

> would you be willing to consider a scoped down implementation of GIC
> Direct LPI with just an IRQ chip implementation and no Direct LPI
> PCI-MSI IRQ chip.

Could you please clarify? If you are not implementing MSIs, how can a
device signal LPIs? At the end of the day, something has to write into
the RD, and it isn't going to happen by sheer magic.

> This will allow a MSI provider (such as Hyper-V vPCI) to provide a
> PCI-MSI IRQ chip on top of the Direct LPI IRQ chip and enable
> PCI-MSI scenarios, and avoid building in assumptions in other cases
> (like PCI) where firmware specification is not available.

I really don't get what you are suggesting. Could you please describe
what you have in mind?

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.