Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:13:06 +0800 | From | Yijing Wang <> | Subject | Re: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains |
| |
在 2014/11/22 1:31, Bjorn Helgaas 写道: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:54:40AM +0800, Yijing Wang wrote: >>>> Thomas, let me know if you want to do that. I suppose we could add a new >>>> patch to add it back, but that would leave bisection broken for the >>>> interval between c167caf8d174 and the patch that adds it back. >>> Fortunately my irq/irqdomain branch is not immutable yet. So we have >>> no problem at that point. I can rebase on your branch until tomorrow >>> night. Or just rebase on mainline and we sort out the merge conflicts >>> later, i.e. delegate them to Linus so his job of pulling stuff gets >>> not completely boring. >> Hi Thomas, sorry for my introducing the broken. >> >>> What I'm more worried about is whether this intended change is going >>> to inflict a problem on Jiangs intention to deduce the MSI irq domain >>> from the device, which we really need for making DMAR work w/o going >>> through loops and hoops. >>> >>> I have limited knowledge about the actual scope of iommu (DMAR) units >>> versus device/bus/host-controllers, so I would appreciate a proper >>> explanation for that from you or Jiang or both. >> In my personal opinion, if it's not necessary, we should not put stuff >> into pci_dev or pci_bus. If we plan to save msi_controller in pci_bus or >> pci_dev. >> I have a proposal, I would be appreciated if you could give some comments. >> First we refactor pci_host_bridge to make a generic >> pci_host_bridge, then we could save pci domain in it to eliminate >> arch specific functions. I aslo wanted to save msi_controller as >> pci domain, but now Jiang refactor hierarchy irq domain, and >> pci devices under the same pci host bridge may need to associate >> to different msi_controllers. > I think this is getting ahead of ourselves. Let's make small steps. > > We currently have the msi_controller pointer in struct pci_bus. That was > there even before your series. Your series added pci_msi_controller(), > and I reworked it so it looks like this: > > static struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *dev) > { > struct msi_controller *msi_ctrl = dev->bus->msi; > > if (msi_ctrl) > return msi_ctrl; > > return pcibios_msi_controller(dev); > } > > So now your series basically just removes the ARM add_bus() and > remove_bus() methods and gets the MSI controller info from the ARM > pci_sys_data struct instead of from pci_bus. Of course, that assumes that > on ARM, all devices under a host bridge have the same MSI controller. That > seems like an unwarranted assumption, but if you want to do it for ARM, > that's fine with me.
Agree, we could use pci_msi_controller() to find msi_controller for pci_dev before a better common way found.
> >> So I want to associate a msi_controller finding ops with generic pci_host_bridge, >> then every pci device could find its msi_controller/irq_domain by a >> common function >> >> E.g >> >> struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev) >> { >> struct msi_controller *ctrl; >> struct pci_host_bridge *host = find_pci_host_bridge(pdev->bus); >> if (host && host->pci_get_msi_controller) >> ctrl = pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev); >> >> return ctrl; >> } > You can do this for ARM if you want (and your series already accomplishes > the same effect, though implemented differently). But I don't think this > is appropriate for the PCI core.
OK. We need a better solution, not only for arm, also need to consider arm64 and other platforms.
> > For anybody who is on this thread but not the original, I reworked the > series slightly, see [1]. > > Bjorn > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20141121172018.GA6578@google.com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
| |