Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 09/14] irqchip/riscv-imsic: Add support for PCI MSI
 irqdomain
In-Reply-To: <87jzrbf5cw.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
References: <20231023172800.315343-1-apatel@ventanamicro.com>
 <20231023172800.315343-10-apatel@ventanamicro.com>
 <8734y0rwtw.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
 <CAK9=C2UVgTd-a0671Lab_ZeOPWP3=wHY+pydKHqaR-Yg65YhrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87jzrbf5cw.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 20:36:22 +0200
Message-ID: <87y1fmzja1.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 25 2023 at 10:55, Bj=C3=B6rn T=C3=B6pel wrote:
>> Now for IMSIC-PCI domain, the PCI framework expects the
>> pci_msi_mask/unmask_irq() functions to be called but if
>> we directly point pci_msi_mask/unmask_irq() in the IMSIC-PCI
>> irqchip then IMSIC-BASE (parent domain) irq_mask/umask
>> won't be called hence the IRQ won't be masked/unmask.
>> Due to this, we call both pci_msi_mask/unmask_irq() and
>> irq_chip_mask/unmask_parent() for IMSIC-PCI domain.
>
> Ok. I wont dig more into it for now! If the interrupt is disabled at
> PCI, it seems a bit overkill to *also* mask it at the IMSIC level...

Only _if_ the device provides MSI masking, but that extra mask/unmask is
not the end of the world.

Thanks,

        tglx