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:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 14:34:05 +0100
Message-ID: <875ytrddma.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Cc:     Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Heiko =?UTF-8?B?U3TDvGJuZXI=?= <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/3] irqchip/sifive-plic: Add thead,c900-plic support
In-Reply-To: <CAJF2gTSmyu9nA5M3QLeR1LdGMkeGb7jE93Z9zjixcpb_freLMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20211016032200.2869998-1-guoren@kernel.org>
        <20211016032200.2869998-2-guoren@kernel.org>
        <8be1bdbd-365d-cd28-79d7-b924908f9e39@sholland.org>
        <f850af365f2ac77af79ec59f92e6434a@kernel.org>
        <CAJF2gTShT8Tvk0z6B52zKEi0vq_toc-7mAKWFKj3j-zg=OhpYQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <8735oxuxlq.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <CAJF2gTSmyu9nA5M3QLeR1LdGMkeGb7jE93Z9zjixcpb_freLMw@mail.gmail.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 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:27:02 +0100,
Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 6:18 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:33:49 +0100,
> > Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > If you have an 'automask' behavior and yet the HW doesn't record this
> > > > in a separate bit, then you need to track this by yourself in the
> > > > irq_eoi() callback instead. I guess that you would skip the write to
> > > > the CLAIM register in this case, though I have no idea whether this
> > > > breaks
> > > > the HW interrupt state or not.
> > > The problem is when enable bit is 0 for that irq_number,
> > > "writel(d->hwirq, handler->hart_base + CONTEXT_CLAIM)" wouldn't affect
> > > the hw state machine. Then this irq would enter in ack state and no
> > > continues irqs could come in.
> >
> > Really? This means that you cannot mask an interrupt while it is being
> > handled? How great...
> If the completion ID does not match an interrupt source that is
> currently enabled for the target, the completion is silently ignored.
> So, C9xx completion depends on enable-bit.

Is that what the PLIC spec says? Or what your implementation does? I
can understand that one implementation would be broken, but if the
PLIC architecture itself is broken, that's far more concerning.

	M.

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