From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275D0C433E0 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E863761A0B for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:20:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234877AbhCXNUR (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:20:17 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:33700 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234750AbhCXNTs (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:19:48 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA5D1FB; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.255]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A55263F718; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:19:38 +0000 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Robin Murphy , Bjorn Helgaas , Frank Wunderlich , Thierry Reding , Thomas Gleixner , Rob Herring , Will Deacon , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Michael Kelley , Wei Liu , Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , Ryder Lee , Marek Vasut , Yoshihiro Shimoda , Michal Simek , Paul Walmsley , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] PCI/MSI: Let PCI host bridges declare their reliance on MSI domains Message-ID: <20210324131938.GA16722@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20210322184614.802565-1-maz@kernel.org> <20210322184614.802565-13-maz@kernel.org> <6a2eaa5d-1d83-159f-69e5-c9e0a00a7b50@arm.com> <87im5hkahr.wl-maz@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87im5hkahr.wl-maz@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 06:09:36PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Hi Robin, > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:45:02 +0000, > Robin Murphy wrote: > > > > On 2021-03-22 18:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > The new 'no_msi' attribute solves the problem of advertising the lack > > > of MSI capability for host bridges that know for sure that there will > > > be no MSI for their end-points. > > > > > > However, there is a whole class of host bridges that cannot know > > > whether MSIs will be provided or not, as they rely on other blocks > > > to provide the MSI functionnality, using MSI domains. This is > > > the case for example on systems that use the ARM GIC architecture. > > > > > > Introduce a new attribute ('msi_domain') indicating that implicit > > > dependency, and use this property to set the NO_MSI flag when > > > no MSI domain is found at probe time. > > > > > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > > > --- > > > drivers/pci/probe.c | 2 +- > > > include/linux/pci.h | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c > > > index 146bd85c037e..bac9f69a06a8 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c > > > @@ -925,7 +925,7 @@ static int pci_register_host_bridge(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge) > > > device_enable_async_suspend(bus->bridge); > > > pci_set_bus_of_node(bus); > > > pci_set_bus_msi_domain(bus); > > > - if (bridge->no_msi) > > > + if (bridge->no_msi || (bridge->msi_domain && !bus->dev.msi_domain)) > > > bus->bus_flags |= PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MSI; > > > if (!parent) > > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h > > > index 48605cca82ae..d322d00db432 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h > > > @@ -551,6 +551,7 @@ struct pci_host_bridge { > > > unsigned int preserve_config:1; /* Preserve FW resource setup */ > > > unsigned int size_windows:1; /* Enable root bus sizing */ > > > unsigned int no_msi:1; /* Bridge has no MSI support */ > > > + unsigned int msi_domain:1; /* Bridge wants MSI domain */ > > > > Aren't these really the same thing? Either way we're saying the bridge > > itself doesn't handle MSIs, it's just in one case we're effectively > > encoding a platform-specific assumption that an external domain won't > > be provided. I can't help wondering whether that distinction is really > > necessary... > > There is a subtle difference: no_msi indicates that there is no way > *any* MSI can be dealt with whatsoever (maybe because the RC doesn't > forward the corresponding TLPs?). msi_domain says "no MSI unless...". > > We could implement the former with the latter, but I have the feeling > that's not totally bullet proof. Happy to revisit this if you think it > really matters. IIUC msi_domain == 1 means: this host bridge needs an msi_domain to enable MSIs, which in turn means that there are bridges that do _not_ require an msi_domain to enable MSIs. I don't know how other arches handle the msi_domain pointer but I am asking whether making: if (bridge->no_msi || !bus->dev.msi_domain)) bus->bus_flags |= PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MSI; is a possibility (removing the need for the msi_domain flag). At least this looks more like an arch property than a host bridge specific property (eg patch [13] pci_host_common_probe() may be used on arches other than ARM where it is not necessary true that it requires an msi_domain to enable MSIs). I agree that's complicated to untangle - just asking if there is way to simplify it. Thanks, Lorenzo > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.