| Message ID | 546495AB.9050308@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 12/11/14 14:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> This patch introduces two optionnal fields to the msi_chip structure: > >> - a pointer to an irq domain, describing the MSI domain associated > >> with this msi_chip. To be populated with msi_create_irq_domain. > >> - a domain_alloc_irqs() callback that has the same purpose as > >> arch_setup_msi_irqs(), with the above domain as an additional > >> parameter. > >> > >> If both of these fields are non-NULL, then domain_alloc_irqs() is > >> called, bypassing the setup_irq callback. This allows the MSI driver > >> to use the domain stacking feature without mandating core support in > >> the architecture. > > > > I'd rather have the callback in the irqdomain itself. Along with a > > callback to free the interrupts. > > > > AFAICT is msi_chip more or less a wrapper around the actual MSI irq > > domain. So we rather move towards assigning irqdomain to the pci bus > > and get rid of msi_chip instead of adding another level of obscure > > indirection through msi_chip. > > I can see that putting the irq domain at the bus level makes a lot of > sense (assuming nobody tries to have multiple MSI controllers per bus...). That would be interesting :) > So I'm starting with something like this: > > diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h > index 640a1ec..07e50fc 100644 > --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h > +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct irq_domain; > struct of_device_id; > struct irq_chip; > struct irq_data; > +struct device; > > /* Number of irqs reserved for a legacy isa controller */ > #define NUM_ISA_INTERRUPTS 16 > @@ -76,6 +77,10 @@ struct irq_domain_ops { > unsigned int nr_irqs); > void (*activate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data); > void (*deactivate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data); > + int (*prepare_alloc_irqs)(struct irq_domain *d, struct device *dev, > + unsigned int nr_irqs, int type); > + int (*cleanup_free_irqs)(struct irq_domain *d, struct device *dev, > + unsigned int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs); > #endif > }; > > How do you see this behaving? At the moment, I have the "prepare" callback > directly calling into pci_msi_domain_alloc_irqs() so that the irqs get > created, but I have the nagging feeling that it's not what you want... ;-) > The main issue I can see is that if more than one domain in the stack > implements that, who gets to call pci_msi_domain_alloc_irqs? > > If we try to decouple those two, there is a problem with the creation of > the intermediate structure (the irq_alloc_info that's in Jiang's patches), > as this is a arch/driver/whatever specific structure. Hard to tell. I just saw Jiangs new series arrive and I want to look at that first before muttering nonsense. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h index 640a1ec..07e50fc 100644 --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct irq_domain; struct of_device_id; struct irq_chip; struct irq_data; +struct device; /* Number of irqs reserved for a legacy isa controller */ #define NUM_ISA_INTERRUPTS 16 @@ -76,6 +77,10 @@ struct irq_domain_ops { unsigned int nr_irqs); void (*activate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data); void (*deactivate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data); + int (*prepare_alloc_irqs)(struct irq_domain *d, struct device *dev, + unsigned int nr_irqs, int type); + int (*cleanup_free_irqs)(struct irq_domain *d, struct device *dev, + unsigned int virq, unsigned int nr_irqs); #endif };