From: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
To: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Cc: "Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org>,
"Nikita Shubin" <nikita.shubin@maquefel.me>,
"Atish Patra" <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
"Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
"Guo Ren" <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] irqchip/sifive-plic: Fixup thead, c900-plic request_threaded_irq with ONESHOT
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:57:50 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy3r2oVOq9yd+ZkOs1oCHRH-qvjLDa25Jp3qeD1tSxWEWQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJF2gTRwi+yH-hQ0SHKDOuUf=OOMfJxQb6Q5m6xRCPjvbYjqaQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:27 AM Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:53 AM Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:50 AM Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:58 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 11:55:23 +0100,
> > > > Nikita Shubin <nikita.shubin@maquefel.me> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Marc and Guo Ren!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:48:33 +0100
> > > > > Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 02:33:03 +0100,
> > > > > > guoren@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When using "devm_request_threaded_irq(,,,,IRQF_ONESHOT,,)" in the
> > > > > > > driver, only the first interrupt could be handled, and continue irq
> > > > > > > is blocked by hw. Because the thead,c900-plic couldn't complete
> > > > > > > masked irq source which has been disabled in enable register. Add
> > > > > > > thead_plic_chip which fix up c906-plic irq source completion
> > > > > > > problem by unmask/mask wrapper.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is the description of Interrupt Completion in PLIC spec [1]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PLIC signals it has completed executing an interrupt handler by
> > > > > > > writing the interrupt ID it received from the claim to the
> > > > > > > claim/complete register. The PLIC does not check whether the
> > > > > > > completion ID is the same as the last claim ID for that target. If
> > > > > > > the completion ID does not match an interrupt source that is
> > > > > > > currently enabled for the target, the ^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> > > > > > > completion is silently ignored.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given this bit of the spec...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +static void plic_thead_irq_eoi(struct irq_data *d)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct plic_handler *handler =
> > > > > > > this_cpu_ptr(&plic_handlers); +
> > > > > > > + if (irqd_irq_masked(d)) {
> > > > > > > + plic_irq_unmask(d);
> > > > > > > + writel(d->hwirq, handler->hart_base +
> > > > > > > CONTEXT_CLAIM);
> > > > > > > + plic_irq_mask(d);
> > > > > > > + } else {
> > > > > > > + writel(d->hwirq, handler->hart_base +
> > > > > > > CONTEXT_CLAIM);
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ... it isn't obvious to me why this cannot happen on an SiFive PLIC.
> > > > >
> > > > > This indeed happens with SiFive PLIC. I am currently tinkering with
> > > > > da9063 RTC on SiFive Unmatched, and ALARM irq fires only once. However
> > > > > with changes proposed by Guo Ren in plic_thead_irq_eoi, everything
> > > > > begins to work fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > May be these change should be propagated to plic_irq_eoi instead of
> > > > > making a new function ?
> > > >
> > > > That's my impression too. I think the T-Head defect is pretty much
> > > > immaterial when you consider how 'interesting' the PLIC architecture
> > > > is.
> > > Which is the "T-Head defect" you mentioned here?
> > > 1. Auto masking with claim + complete (I don't think it's a defect,
> > > right? May I add a new patch to utilize the feature to decrease a
> > > little duplicate mask/unmask operations in the future?)
> >
> > This is definitely a defect and non-compliance for T-HEAD because
> I just agree with non-compliance, but what's the defect of
> auto-masking? If somebody could explain, I'm very grateful.
>
> > no sane interrupt controller would mask interrupt upon claim and this
> > is not what RISC-V PLIC defines.
> >
> > > 2. EOI failed when masked
> >
> > This defect exists for both RISC-V PLIC and T-HEAD PLIC
> > because of the way interrupt completion is defined.
> >
> > >
> > > > Conflating EOI and masking really is a misfeature...
> > > I think the problem is riscv PLIC reuse enable bit as mask bit. I
> > > recommend separating them. That means:
> >
> > There are no per-interrupt mask bits. We only have per-context
> > and per-interrupt enable bits which is used to provide mask/unmask
> > functionality expected by the irqchip framework.
> >
> > I don't see how this is a problem for RISC-V PLIC. The only real
> > issue with RISC-V PLIC is the fact the interrupt completion will be
> > ignored for a masked interrupt which is what Marc is pointing at.
> So you are not considering add per-interrupt mask bits to solve the
> above problem, right?
The RISC-V PLIC has several limitations and also lacks a lot of features
hence it's marked as deprecated in RISC-V platform specs and will be
removed eventually from RISC-V platform specs.
The RISC-V AIA will totally replace RISC-V PLIC going forward. In fact,
RISC-V AIA APLIC addresses all limitations of RISC-V PLIC along with
new features additions.
>
> I don't think you would keep below codes in AIA eoi.
> + plic_irq_unmask(d);
> + writel(d->hwirq, handler->hart_base + CONTEXT_CLAIM);
> + plic_irq_mask(d);
Like I mentioned previously, the AIA APLIC is very different from the
PLIC so we don't need this mask/unmask dance over there. It has global
per-interrupt enable bits in AIA APLIC which is different from PLIC.
Regards,
Anup
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anup
> >
> > > - EOI still depends on enable bit.
> > > - Add mask/unmask bit regs to do the right thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > M.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards
> > > Guo Ren
> > >
> > > ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> Guo Ren
>
> ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-01 4:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-24 1:33 [PATCH V5 0/3] Add thead,c900-plic support guoren
2021-10-24 1:33 ` [PATCH V5 1/3] dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add T-Head Semiconductor guoren
2021-11-02 2:21 ` Guo Ren
2021-11-02 12:59 ` Rob Herring
2021-11-03 1:52 ` Guo Ren
2021-10-24 1:33 ` [PATCH V5 2/3] dt-bindings: update riscv plic compatible string guoren
2021-10-24 7:35 ` Anup Patel
2021-10-24 9:01 ` Guo Ren
2021-10-24 9:18 ` Anup Patel
2021-10-24 9:35 ` Guo Ren
2021-10-24 9:52 ` Anup Patel
2021-10-24 10:04 ` Guo Ren
2021-10-24 1:33 ` [PATCH V5 3/3] irqchip/sifive-plic: Fixup thead,c900-plic request_threaded_irq with ONESHOT guoren
2021-10-25 10:48 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-10-25 13:33 ` Guo Ren
2021-10-28 10:55 ` [PATCH V5 3/3] irqchip/sifive-plic: Fixup thead, c900-plic " Nikita Shubin
2021-10-28 14:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-10-30 10:27 ` Anup Patel
2021-11-01 2:20 ` Guo Ren
2021-11-01 2:53 ` Anup Patel
2021-11-01 3:57 ` Guo Ren
2021-11-01 4:27 ` Anup Patel [this message]
2021-11-01 7:56 ` Guo Ren
2021-11-01 9:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-11-01 9:25 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-11-01 2:00 ` Guo Ren
2021-11-01 5:11 ` Vincent Pelletier
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=CAAhSdy3r2oVOq9yd+ZkOs1oCHRH-qvjLDa25Jp3qeD1tSxWEWQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
--cc=guoren@kernel.org \
--cc=guoren@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=nikita.shubin@maquefel.me \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).