Hi Eric, On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:35 PM Auger Eric wrote: > > Hi Vikas, > > On 11/6/20 3:54 AM, Vikas Gupta wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:38 PM Alex Williamson > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:32:55 +0530 > >> Vikas Gupta wrote: > >> > >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h > >>> index 2f313a238a8f..aab051e8338d 100644 > >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h > >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vfio.h > >>> @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ struct vfio_device_info { > >>> #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_AP (1 << 5) /* vfio-ap device */ > >>> #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_FSL_MC (1 << 6) /* vfio-fsl-mc device */ > >>> #define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_CAPS (1 << 7) /* Info supports caps */ > >>> +#define VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_MSI (1 << 8) /* Device supports msi */ > >>> __u32 num_regions; /* Max region index + 1 */ > >>> __u32 num_irqs; /* Max IRQ index + 1 */ > >>> __u32 cap_offset; /* Offset within info struct of first cap */ > >> > >> This doesn't make any sense to me, MSIs are just edge triggered > >> interrupts to userspace, so why isn't this fully described via > >> VFIO_DEVICE_GET_IRQ_INFO? If we do need something new to describe it, > >> this seems incomplete, which indexes are MSI (IRQ_INFO can describe > >> that)? We also already support MSI with vfio-pci, so a global flag for > >> the device advertising this still seems wrong. Thanks, > >> > >> Alex > >> > > Since VFIO platform uses indexes for IRQ numbers so I think MSI(s) > > cannot be described using indexes. > > In the patch set there is no difference between MSI and normal > > interrupt for VFIO_DEVICE_GET_IRQ_INFO. > in vfio_platform_irq_init() we first iterate on normal interrupts using > get_irq(). Can't we add an MSI index at the end of this list with > vdev->irqs[i].count > 1 and set vdev->num_irqs accordingly? Yes, I think MSI can be added to the end of list with setting vdev->irqs[i].count > 1. I`ll consider changing in the next patch set. Thanks, Vikas > > Thanks > > Eric > > The patch set adds MSI(s), say as an extension, to the normal > > interrupts and handled accordingly. Do you see this is a violation? If > > yes, then we`ll think of other possible ways to support MSI for the > > platform devices. > > Macro VFIO_DEVICE_FLAGS_MSI can be changed to any other name if it > > collides with an already supported vfio-pci or if not necessary, we > > can remove this flag. > > > > Thanks, > > Vikas > > >