From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752115AbbFZK2d (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:28:33 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:59247 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbbFZK2Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:28:25 -0400 Message-ID: <558D2937.7060408@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:28:07 +0800 From: "majun (F)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , "jason@lakedaemon.net" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "lizefan@huawei.com" , "huxinwei@huawei.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] IRQ/Gic-V3: Change arm-gic-its to support the Mbigen interrupt References: <1434077399-32200-1-git-send-email-majun258@huawei.com> <1434077399-32200-3-git-send-email-majun258@huawei.com> <558CF1CD.5020200@huawei.com> <558D10E1.8040701@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <558D10E1.8040701@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.236.124] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Marc: ÔÚ 2015/6/26 16:44, Marc Zyngier дµÀ: > > You can then keep your MBI stuff in a separate file, and call into > its_msi_prepare. > Thanks for your good suggestion! I have two questions: Question 1: I found the ¡®its_msi_preapare ' defined without static. So,I guess you mean I can call this fucntion directly from mbigen driver, right? or I need make the code likes below and leave these code in ITS? static struct mbigen_domain_ops its_mbigen_ops = { + .mbigen_prepare = its_msi_prepare, }; static struct mbigen_domain_info its_mbigen_domain_info = { .ops = &its_mbigen_ops, }; Question 2: @@ -1489,6 +1538,18 @@ static int its_probe(struct device_node *node, struct irq_domain *parent) err = of_pci_msi_chip_add(&its->msi_chip); if (err) goto out_free_domains; + + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MBIGEN_IRQ_DOMAIN)) { + its->mbi_chip.domain = its_mbigen_create_irq_domain(node, + &its_mbigen_domain_info, + its->domain); + + if (!its->mbi_chip.domain) { + err = -ENOMEM; + pr_warn_once("ITS:no mbigen chip found\n"); + goto out_free_mbigen; + } + } } spin_lock(&its_lock); @@ -1497,6 +1558,9 @@ static int its_probe(struct device_node *node, struct irq_domain *parent) return 0; +out_free_mbigen: + if (its->mbi_chip.domain) + irq_domain_remove(its->mbi_chip.domain); out_free_domains: if (its->msi_chip.domain) irq_domain_remove(its->msi_chip.domain); What's you opinion about the code above Leave it in ITS or create the mbi irq domain in mbigen driver? If I have to create mbi irq domain in mbigen driver, I need a pointer of its domain. For this problem, I think i can solve it by using its_nodes¡¯ in mbigen driver *if* [1] add a member " struct device_node *node" in 'struct its_node' [2] in 'its_probe' function , add its->node = node; [3] remove the static definition from 'static LIST_HEAD(its_nodes);' How is you opinion? Thansks again! >> Now, all these functions and data structure are defined as static. >> to use them, I have to remove the 'static' definition and put them >> in a head file £¨ create a new head file). > > I don't want to see these functions and structure leaking out of the > ITS code unless we're absolutely forced to do so. The above code > shows you one possible way to solve the problem. > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: majun258@huawei.com (majun (F)) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:28:07 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] IRQ/Gic-V3: Change arm-gic-its to support the Mbigen interrupt In-Reply-To: <558D10E1.8040701@arm.com> References: <1434077399-32200-1-git-send-email-majun258@huawei.com> <1434077399-32200-3-git-send-email-majun258@huawei.com> <558CF1CD.5020200@huawei.com> <558D10E1.8040701@arm.com> Message-ID: <558D2937.7060408@huawei.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Marc: ? 2015/6/26 16:44, Marc Zyngier ??: > > You can then keep your MBI stuff in a separate file, and call into > its_msi_prepare. > Thanks for your good suggestion! I have two questions: Question 1: I found the ?its_msi_preapare ' defined without static. So,I guess you mean I can call this fucntion directly from mbigen driver, right? or I need make the code likes below and leave these code in ITS? static struct mbigen_domain_ops its_mbigen_ops = { + .mbigen_prepare = its_msi_prepare, }; static struct mbigen_domain_info its_mbigen_domain_info = { .ops = &its_mbigen_ops, }; Question 2: @@ -1489,6 +1538,18 @@ static int its_probe(struct device_node *node, struct irq_domain *parent) err = of_pci_msi_chip_add(&its->msi_chip); if (err) goto out_free_domains; + + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MBIGEN_IRQ_DOMAIN)) { + its->mbi_chip.domain = its_mbigen_create_irq_domain(node, + &its_mbigen_domain_info, + its->domain); + + if (!its->mbi_chip.domain) { + err = -ENOMEM; + pr_warn_once("ITS:no mbigen chip found\n"); + goto out_free_mbigen; + } + } } spin_lock(&its_lock); @@ -1497,6 +1558,9 @@ static int its_probe(struct device_node *node, struct irq_domain *parent) return 0; +out_free_mbigen: + if (its->mbi_chip.domain) + irq_domain_remove(its->mbi_chip.domain); out_free_domains: if (its->msi_chip.domain) irq_domain_remove(its->msi_chip.domain); What's you opinion about the code above Leave it in ITS or create the mbi irq domain in mbigen driver? If I have to create mbi irq domain in mbigen driver, I need a pointer of its domain. For this problem, I think i can solve it by using its_nodes? in mbigen driver *if* [1] add a member " struct device_node *node" in 'struct its_node' [2] in 'its_probe' function , add its->node = node; [3] remove the static definition from 'static LIST_HEAD(its_nodes);' How is you opinion? Thansks again! >> Now, all these functions and data structure are defined as static. >> to use them, I have to remove the 'static' definition and put them >> in a head file ? create a new head file). > > I don't want to see these functions and structure leaking out of the > ITS code unless we're absolutely forced to do so. The above code > shows you one possible way to solve the problem. >