All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "majun (F)" <majun258@huawei.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Will.Deacon@arm.com,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com, jason@lakedaemon.net,
	lizefan@huawei.com, huxinwei@huawei.com,
	dingtianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>, 吴云 <wuyun.wu@huawei.com>,
	赵俊化 <zhaojunhua@hisilicon.com>,
	"Liguozhu (Kenneth)" <liguozhu@hisilicon.com>,
	许威 <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>, chenwei <wei.chenwei@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] IRQ/Gic-V3: Change arm-gic-its to support the Mbigen interrupt
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:05:49 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <557E794D.2080705@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1506121230320.3786@nanos>



在 2015/6/12 18:48, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Ma Jun wrote:
> 
>> This patch is applied to support the mbigen interrupt.
>>
>> As a kind of MSI interrupt controller, the mbigen is used as a child 
>> domain of ITS domain just like PCI devices.
>> So the arm-gic-v3-its and related files are changed.
>>
>> The chip.c is also changed to check irq_ach before it called.
> 
> This patch wants to be split into several:
> 
> 1) Changes to the core code
> 
> 2) New functionality in the core code
> 
> 2) Changes to gic-v3-its
> 
> And all patches require proper changelogs which explain WHY these
> changes are necessary.
> 
> We can see which files are changed from the diffstat and the patch
> ourself. So no point to mention this in the changelog.
> 
> But we cannot figure out from looking at the code WHY you think that
> your approach to solve the problem is the right one.
> 
>>  void irq_chip_ack_parent(struct irq_data *data)
>>  {
>>  	data = data->parent_data;
>> -	data->chip->irq_ack(data);
>> +	if (data->chip->irq_ack)
>> +		data->chip->irq_ack(data);
> 
> Why is this required? Just because? Again, you fail to provide a
> rationale for the changes to the irq_chip*parent() functions.
> 
> Why would you call irq_chip_ack_parent() if that parent does not
> provide the required functionality in the first place?
> 

Yes, this is not a necessary callback. I will remove this callback
from mbigen driver.

>>  /*
>> @@ -363,6 +364,9 @@ struct irq_chip {
>>  	int		(*irq_request_resources)(struct irq_data *data);
>>  	void		(*irq_release_resources)(struct irq_data *data);
>>  
>> +	void		(*irq_compose_mbigen_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct mbigen_msg *msg);
>> +	void		(*irq_write_mbigen_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct mbigen_msg *msg);
>> +
> 
> What's so special about mbigen to justify extra callbacks which just
> bloat the data structure for everyone. Why are the msi callbacks not
> sufficient?
> 
> MBI is just another variant of MSI, right?
> 
yes,MBI is a kind of MSI which used for non-pci devices.

According to Marc's advice, the irq hierachy structure
in my patch likes below:
non-pci devices-->mbigen-->its-->gic
pci devices     -->msi __/

Eventhough the function *irq_compose_mbigen_msg does
the same thing as *irq_chip_compose_msi_msg, I still
added this function. Because I don't want mix the code
used by msi(pci devices) with the code used by mbigen.

> struct mbigen_msg {
>        u32     address_lo;
>        u32     address_hi;
>        u32     data;
> };
> 
> struct mbigen_msg is just a mindless copy of struct msi_msg:
> 
> struct msi_msg {
>         u32     address_lo;     /* low 32 bits of msi message address */
>         u32     address_hi;     /* high 32 bits of msi message address */
>         u32     data;           /* 16 bits of msi message data */
> };
> 
> So what's the point of this?
>

Based on the same reason, I also added  structure mbigen_msg for
mbigen using.

>>  	void		(*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>  	void		(*irq_write_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>  
> 
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * irq_chip_compose_mbigen_msg - Componse mbigen message for a mbigen irq chip
>> + * @data:	Pointer to interrupt specific data
>> + * @msg:	Pointer to the mbigen message
>> + *
>> + * For hierarchical domains we find the first chip in the hierarchy
>> + * which implements the irq_compose_mbigen_msg callback. For non
>> + * hierarchical we use the top level chip.
>> + */
>> +
>> +int irq_chip_compose_mbigen_msg(struct irq_data *data, struct mbigen_msg *msg)
>> +{
>> +	struct irq_data *pos = NULL;
>> +
>> +#ifdef	CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
>> +	for (; data; data = data->parent_data)
>> +#endif
>> +		if (data->chip && data->chip->irq_compose_mbigen_msg)
>> +			pos = data;
>> +	if (!pos)
>> +		return -ENOSYS;
>> +
>> +	pos->chip->irq_compose_mbigen_msg(pos, msg);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> 
> Again, this is a completely useless copy of irq_chip_compose_msi_msg().
> Why can't you just use the existing callbacks and use struct msi_msg
> for your special chip?
> 
As mentioned before, to avoid using the code of msi, i added this
function.Because they are different domain.

If you don't mind, I can use the irq_chip_compose_msi_msg function in
mbigen driver instead of irq_chip_compose_mbigen_msg.

> And w/o looking at the mbigen code in detail, I bet it's nothing else
> than MSI for non PCI devices and contains tons of redundant and copied
> code, right?
>
> Can you please provide a proper description of this mbigen chip and
> explain WHY you think that it needs all this special hackery?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> .
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: majun258@huawei.com (majun (F))
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] IRQ/Gic-V3: Change arm-gic-its to support the Mbigen interrupt
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:05:49 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <557E794D.2080705@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1506121230320.3786@nanos>



? 2015/6/12 18:48, Thomas Gleixner ??:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Ma Jun wrote:
> 
>> This patch is applied to support the mbigen interrupt.
>>
>> As a kind of MSI interrupt controller, the mbigen is used as a child 
>> domain of ITS domain just like PCI devices.
>> So the arm-gic-v3-its and related files are changed.
>>
>> The chip.c is also changed to check irq_ach before it called.
> 
> This patch wants to be split into several:
> 
> 1) Changes to the core code
> 
> 2) New functionality in the core code
> 
> 2) Changes to gic-v3-its
> 
> And all patches require proper changelogs which explain WHY these
> changes are necessary.
> 
> We can see which files are changed from the diffstat and the patch
> ourself. So no point to mention this in the changelog.
> 
> But we cannot figure out from looking at the code WHY you think that
> your approach to solve the problem is the right one.
> 
>>  void irq_chip_ack_parent(struct irq_data *data)
>>  {
>>  	data = data->parent_data;
>> -	data->chip->irq_ack(data);
>> +	if (data->chip->irq_ack)
>> +		data->chip->irq_ack(data);
> 
> Why is this required? Just because? Again, you fail to provide a
> rationale for the changes to the irq_chip*parent() functions.
> 
> Why would you call irq_chip_ack_parent() if that parent does not
> provide the required functionality in the first place?
> 

Yes, this is not a necessary callback. I will remove this callback
from mbigen driver.

>>  /*
>> @@ -363,6 +364,9 @@ struct irq_chip {
>>  	int		(*irq_request_resources)(struct irq_data *data);
>>  	void		(*irq_release_resources)(struct irq_data *data);
>>  
>> +	void		(*irq_compose_mbigen_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct mbigen_msg *msg);
>> +	void		(*irq_write_mbigen_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct mbigen_msg *msg);
>> +
> 
> What's so special about mbigen to justify extra callbacks which just
> bloat the data structure for everyone. Why are the msi callbacks not
> sufficient?
> 
> MBI is just another variant of MSI, right?
> 
yes,MBI is a kind of MSI which used for non-pci devices.

According to Marc's advice, the irq hierachy structure
in my patch likes below:
non-pci devices-->mbigen-->its-->gic
pci devices     -->msi __/

Eventhough the function *irq_compose_mbigen_msg does
the same thing as *irq_chip_compose_msi_msg, I still
added this function. Because I don't want mix the code
used by msi(pci devices) with the code used by mbigen.

> struct mbigen_msg {
>        u32     address_lo;
>        u32     address_hi;
>        u32     data;
> };
> 
> struct mbigen_msg is just a mindless copy of struct msi_msg:
> 
> struct msi_msg {
>         u32     address_lo;     /* low 32 bits of msi message address */
>         u32     address_hi;     /* high 32 bits of msi message address */
>         u32     data;           /* 16 bits of msi message data */
> };
> 
> So what's the point of this?
>

Based on the same reason, I also added  structure mbigen_msg for
mbigen using.

>>  	void		(*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>  	void		(*irq_write_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>  
> 
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * irq_chip_compose_mbigen_msg - Componse mbigen message for a mbigen irq chip
>> + * @data:	Pointer to interrupt specific data
>> + * @msg:	Pointer to the mbigen message
>> + *
>> + * For hierarchical domains we find the first chip in the hierarchy
>> + * which implements the irq_compose_mbigen_msg callback. For non
>> + * hierarchical we use the top level chip.
>> + */
>> +
>> +int irq_chip_compose_mbigen_msg(struct irq_data *data, struct mbigen_msg *msg)
>> +{
>> +	struct irq_data *pos = NULL;
>> +
>> +#ifdef	CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
>> +	for (; data; data = data->parent_data)
>> +#endif
>> +		if (data->chip && data->chip->irq_compose_mbigen_msg)
>> +			pos = data;
>> +	if (!pos)
>> +		return -ENOSYS;
>> +
>> +	pos->chip->irq_compose_mbigen_msg(pos, msg);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> 
> Again, this is a completely useless copy of irq_chip_compose_msi_msg().
> Why can't you just use the existing callbacks and use struct msi_msg
> for your special chip?
> 
As mentioned before, to avoid using the code of msi, i added this
function.Because they are different domain.

If you don't mind, I can use the irq_chip_compose_msi_msg function in
mbigen driver instead of irq_chip_compose_mbigen_msg.

> And w/o looking at the mbigen code in detail, I bet it's nothing else
> than MSI for non PCI devices and contains tons of redundant and copied
> code, right?
>
> Can you please provide a proper description of this mbigen chip and
> explain WHY you think that it needs all this special hackery?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> .
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-15  7:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-12  2:49 [PATCH v2 0/3] IRQ/Gic-V3:Support Mbigen interrupt controller Ma Jun
2015-06-12  2:49 ` Ma Jun
2015-06-12  2:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] IRQ/Gic-V3: Add mbigen driver to support mbigen " Ma Jun
2015-06-12  2:49   ` Ma Jun
2015-06-12  2:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] IRQ/Gic-V3: Change arm-gic-its to support the Mbigen interrupt Ma Jun
2015-06-12  2:49   ` Ma Jun
2015-06-12 10:48   ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-12 10:48     ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-15  7:05     ` majun (F) [this message]
2015-06-15  7:05       ` majun (F)
2015-06-18 23:52       ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-18 23:52         ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-23  9:03         ` majun (F)
2015-06-23  9:03           ` majun (F)
2015-06-23  9:29           ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-23  9:29             ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-26  8:45             ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-26  8:45               ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-26  6:31   ` majun (F)
2015-06-26  6:31     ` majun (F)
2015-06-26  8:44     ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-26  8:44       ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-26 10:28       ` majun (F)
2015-06-26 10:28         ` majun (F)
2015-06-26 10:40         ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-26 10:40           ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-26 12:04           ` majun (F)
2015-06-26 12:04             ` majun (F)
2015-06-26 13:14             ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-26 13:14               ` Marc Zyngier
2015-06-12  2:49 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-binding:Documents the mbigen bindings Ma Jun
2015-06-12  2:49   ` Ma Jun

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=557E794D.2080705@huawei.com \
    --to=majun258@huawei.com \
    --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
    --cc=huxinwei@huawei.com \
    --cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
    --cc=liguozhu@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wei.chenwei@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=wuyun.wu@huawei.com \
    --cc=xuwei5@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=zhaojunhua@hisilicon.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.