From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] PCI: designware-ep: Add generic function for raising MSI irq To: Niklas Cassel References: <20171219232940.659-1-niklas.cassel@axis.com> <20171219232940.659-7-niklas.cassel@axis.com> <5fc44bf0-9d0e-e905-32fb-449d9ed1b01a@ti.com> <20171227222909.GA14106@axis.com> CC: Jingoo Han , Joao Pinto , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , , From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 13:36:28 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171227222909.GA14106@axis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Niklas, On Thursday 28 December 2017 03:59 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 06:20:54PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi Niklas, > > Hello Kishon > >> >> On Wednesday 20 December 2017 04:59 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote: >>> Add a generic function for raising MSI irqs that can be used by all >>> DWC based controllers. >>> >>> Note that certain controllers, like DRA7xx, have a special convenience >>> register for raising MSI irqs that doesn't require you to explicitly map >>> the MSI address. Therefore, it is likely that certain drivers will >>> not use this generic function, even if they can. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel >>> --- >>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 9 +++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c >>> index 700ed2f4becf..c5aa1cac5041 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c >>> @@ -282,6 +282,41 @@ static const struct pci_epc_ops epc_ops = { >>> .stop = dw_pcie_ep_stop, >>> }; >>> >>> +int dw_pcie_ep_raise_msi_irq(struct dw_pcie_ep *ep, >>> + u8 interrupt_num) >>> +{ >>> + struct dw_pcie *pci = to_dw_pcie_from_ep(ep); >>> + struct pci_epc *epc = ep->epc; >>> + u16 msg_ctrl, msg_data; >>> + u32 msg_addr_lower, msg_addr_upper; >>> + u64 msg_addr; >>> + bool has_upper; >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + /* Raise MSI per the PCI Local Bus Specification Revision 3.0, 6.8.1. */ >>> + msg_ctrl = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_CONTROL); >>> + has_upper = !!(msg_ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT); >>> + msg_addr_lower = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_ADDR_L32); >>> + if (has_upper) { >>> + msg_addr_upper = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_ADDR_U32); >>> + msg_data = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_DATA_64); >>> + } else { >>> + msg_addr_upper = 0; >>> + msg_data = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_DATA_32); >>> + } >>> + msg_addr = ((u64) msg_addr_upper) << 32 | msg_addr_lower; >>> + ret = dw_pcie_ep_map_addr(epc, ep->msi_mem_phys, msg_addr, >>> + epc->mem->page_size); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> + writel(msg_data | (interrupt_num - 1), ep->msi_mem); >> >> Shouldn't this be msg_data + (interrupt_num - 1)? > > I'm not quite sure about this, but if there is a pending irq, > not yet processed by the RC, the msg_data we read out in this > function should have a bit set, matching the pending irq. IIUC, the msg_data that we read here should not depend on the pending irq on the RC side. msg_data should have the starting MSI vector number assigned by RC for that EP device. (msg.data = pos; in dw_msi_setup_msg() also seem to suggest the same). > > If that irq is the same as the irq we are trying to raise, > doing an addition will produce a bogus vector number, > but a bitwise or should work. if msg_data has the starting MSI vector, doing an addition should get to the correct MSI vector. > > For that reason, I think that doing bitwise or seems safer. > However, other than this case, I don't see why it should > matter if we do an addition or a bitwise or. > > Are you having some problem with the code? > It seems to be working fine on ARTPEC-6: > > # ./pcitest -m 1 > MSI1: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 2 > MSI2: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 3 > MSI3: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 4 > MSI4: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 5 > MSI5: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 6 > MSI6: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 7 > MSI7: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 8 > MSI8: OKAY > # ./pcitest -m 9 > MSI9: OKAY > # cat /proc/interrupts | grep -i msi > 82: 9 0 GIC-0 180 Level artpec6-pcie-msi > 188: 1 0 PCI-MSI 16 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 189: 1 0 PCI-MSI 17 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 190: 1 0 PCI-MSI 18 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 191: 1 0 PCI-MSI 19 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 192: 1 0 PCI-MSI 20 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 193: 1 0 PCI-MSI 21 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 194: 1 0 PCI-MSI 22 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 195: 1 0 PCI-MSI 23 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 196: 1 0 PCI-MSI 24 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 197: 0 0 PCI-MSI 25 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 198: 0 0 PCI-MSI 26 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 199: 0 0 PCI-MSI 27 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 200: 0 0 PCI-MSI 28 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 201: 0 0 PCI-MSI 29 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 202: 0 0 PCI-MSI 30 Edge pci-endpoint-test > 203: 0 0 PCI-MSI 31 Edge pci-endpoint-test > > From EP: > irq: 1 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x10 > irq: 2 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x11 > irq: 3 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x12 > irq: 4 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x13 > irq: 5 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x14 > irq: 6 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x15 > irq: 7 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x16 > irq: 8 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x17 > irq: 9 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x18 since your msg_data is 0x10, you are not facing the issue. What if it's 0x1? In my case If I have Gustavo's patch series applied, msg_data has a value of 0x1 and I don't get certain MSI interrupts. Thanks Kishon