From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: steve.capper@arm.com, shankerd@codeaurora.org,
shannon.zhao@linaro.org, wei.chen@arm.com,
xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 7/8] xen/arm: Allow DOM0 to set the irq type when ACPI is inuse
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:46:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <576A7A81.1020901@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1606221206050.2575@sstabellini-ThinkPad-X260>
Hi Stefano,
On 22/06/16 12:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
>> The function route_irq_to_guest mandates the IRQ type, stored in
>> desc->arch.type, to be valid. However, in case of ACPI, these
>> information is not part of the static tables. Therefore Xen needs to
>> rely on DOM0 to provide a valid type based on the firmware tables.
>>
>> A new helper, irq_type_set_by_domain is provided to check whether a
>> domain is allowed to set the IRQ type. For now, only DOM0 is allowed to
>> configure it when ACPI is inuse.
>>
>> When the helper returns 1, the routing function will not check whether
>> the IRQ type is correctly set and configure the GIC. Instead, this will
>> be done when the domain will enable the interrupt.
>>
>> Note that irq_set_spi_type is not called because it validates the type
>> and does not allow it the domain to change the type after the first
>> write. It means that desc->arch.type will never be set, which is fine
>> because the field is only used to configure the type during the routing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I am thinking to at least extend the behavior to DOM0 using DT. This
>> would make us resilient to a DT not providing the correct type without
>> having to workaround them in Xen.
>
> I agree with you. It is also better to have only one way of doing things
> rather than two.
I will update this patch to allow the hardware domain setting the IRQ type.
[...]
>> +#define NR_CFG_PER_ICFGR 16
>> +#define NR_BITS_PER_CFG (32U / NR_CFG_PER_ICFGR)
>> +
>> +/* The function should be called witht the rank lock taken. */
> ^ with
>
>> +static int __vgic_get_virq_type(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int virq)
>> +{
>> + struct vgic_irq_rank *rank = vgic_rank_irq(v, virq);
>> + uint8_t index = virq & INTERRUPT_RANK_MASK;
>> + uint32_t reg = rank->icfg[index / NR_CFG_PER_ICFGR];
>> + uint8_t val;
>> +
>> + ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&rank->lock));
>> +
>> + val = reg >> ((index % NR_CFG_PER_ICFGR) * NR_BITS_PER_CFG);
>> +
>> + return (val & 0x2) ? IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING : IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH;
>> +}
>
> I would stick to the function and definition we already had from "from
> Configure SPI interrupt type and route to Dom0 dynamically" by Shannon:
I found Shannon's function more difficult to understand. However the
code is simpler, so I will use his function for the next version.
> #define VGIC_ICFG_MASK(intr) (1 << ((2 * ((intr) % 16)) + 1))
>
> static inline unsigned int get_the_irq_type(struct vcpu *v, int n, int index)
> {
> struct vgic_irq_rank *vr = vgic_get_rank(v, n);
> uint32_t tr = vr->icfg[index >> 4];
>
> if ( tr & VGIC_ICFG_MASK(index) )
> return IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH;
> else
> return IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK;
> }
>
>
>
>> void vgic_migrate_irq(struct vcpu *old, struct vcpu *new, unsigned int irq)
>> {
>> unsigned long flags;
>> @@ -342,6 +360,7 @@ void vgic_enable_irqs(struct vcpu *v, uint32_t r, int n)
>> unsigned long flags;
>> int i = 0;
>> struct vcpu *v_target;
>> + struct domain *d = v->domain;
>>
>> while ( (i = find_next_bit(&mask, 32, i)) < 32 ) {
>> irq = i + (32 * n);
>> @@ -356,6 +375,8 @@ void vgic_enable_irqs(struct vcpu *v, uint32_t r, int n)
>> {
>> irq_set_affinity(p->desc, cpumask_of(v_target->processor));
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&p->desc->lock, flags);
>> + if ( irq_type_set_by_domain(d) )
>> + gic_set_irq_type(p->desc, __vgic_get_virq_type(v, irq));
>> p->desc->handler->enable(p->desc);
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->desc->lock, flags);
>> }
>
> This is OK. But I am wondering if it wouldn't make sense to call
> gic_set_irq_type when the guest actually writes to the virtual icfg?
Hmmm it looks like that I forgot to explain in the commit message why I
chose to call gic_set_irq_type here.
Changing the value of Int_config is UNPREDICTABLE when the corresponding
interrupt is not disabled (see 4.3.13 in ARM IHI 0048B.b).
So calling gic_set_irq_type when the guest actualy writes to the virtual
cfg would require to disable the IRQ before hand.
Given that the behavior is UNPREDICTABLE, I chose to set the type before
enabling the IRQ because the resulting code is simpler.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-22 11:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-07 16:48 [RFC 0/8] xen/arm: acpi: Support SPIs routing Julien Grall
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 1/8] xen/arm: gic: Consolidate the IRQ affinity set in a single place Julien Grall
2016-06-22 10:46 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 2/8] xen/arm: gic: Do not configure affinity for guest IRQ during routing Julien Grall
2016-06-22 10:54 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-22 11:19 ` Julien Grall
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 3/8] xen/arm: gic: split set_irq_properties Julien Grall
2016-06-22 10:58 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 4/8] xen/arm: gic: set_type: Pass the type in parameter rather than in desc->arch.type Julien Grall
2016-06-22 11:25 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 5/8] xen/arm: gic: Document how gic_set_irq_type should be called Julien Grall
2016-06-22 11:00 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 6/8] Revert "xen/arm: warn the user that we cannot route SPIs to Dom0 on ACPI" Julien Grall
2016-06-22 11:01 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 7/8] xen/arm: Allow DOM0 to set the irq type when ACPI is inuse Julien Grall
2016-06-22 11:23 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-22 11:46 ` Julien Grall [this message]
2016-06-22 11:49 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-07 16:48 ` [RFC 8/8] xen/arm: acpi: route all unused IRQs to DOM0 Julien Grall
2016-06-22 11:44 ` Stefano Stabellini
2016-06-22 12:19 ` Julien Grall
2016-06-07 18:50 ` [RFC 0/8] xen/arm: acpi: Support SPIs routing Shanker Donthineni
2016-06-08 11:48 ` Shanker Donthineni
2016-06-08 11:49 ` Julien Grall
2016-06-08 12:11 ` Shanker Donthineni
2016-06-08 12:34 ` Julien Grall
2016-06-13 11:42 ` Julien Grall
2016-06-13 17:19 ` Shanker Donthineni
2016-06-13 17:20 ` Julien Grall
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=576A7A81.1020901@arm.com \
--to=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=shankerd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=shannon.zhao@linaro.org \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=steve.capper@arm.com \
--cc=wei.chen@arm.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/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).