Re: [patch 02/33] genirq/msi: Provide struct msi_parent_ops

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
	Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>, Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>,
	Allen Hubbe <allenbh@gmail.com>,
	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@linutronix.de>,
	Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/33] genirq/msi: Provide struct msi_parent_ops
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:58:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8735ahmv2l.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3Uynk6brtNVFUH7@nvidia.com>

On Wed, Nov 16 2022 at 14:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:58:14PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + * This is the most complex problem of per device MSI domains and the
>> + * underlying interrupt domain hierarchy:
>> + *
>> + * The device domain to be initialized requests the broadest feature set
>> + * possible and the underlying domain hierarchy puts restrictions on it.
>> + *
>> + * That's working perfectly fine for a strict parent->device model, but it
>> + * falls apart with a root_parent->real_parent->device chain because the
>
> This language hurt my brain :)

IKR

>> +bool msi_parent_init_dev_msi_info(struct device *dev, struct irq_domain *domain,
>> +				  struct irq_domain *real_parent, struct msi_domain_info *info)
>
> 'real_parent' is global IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_PARENT of the dev for
> which we are constructing a msi_domain_info to create a child aka
> IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_DEVICE?
>
> 'domain' is the current step in the hierarchy as we walk up the ops
> pointers?

Yes.

> Maybe:
>
> @child_info: The MSI domain info of the IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_DEVICE
>              domain to be created
> @parent_domain: The IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_PARENT domain for the child to
>                 be created
> @domain: The domain in the hierarchy this op is being called on

Definitely better.

> And perhaps it would be a bit clearer to put the parent_domain inside
> the msi_domain_info, which is basically acting as an argument bundle
> for a future allocation call?

Maybe. Let me try.