Re: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains
From: Marc Zyngier
Date: Fri Nov 21 2014 - 05:01:02 EST
On 21/11/14 01:54, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> Thomas, let me know if you want to do that. I suppose we could add a new
>>> patch to add it back, but that would leave bisection broken for the
>>> interval between c167caf8d174 and the patch that adds it back.
>> Fortunately my irq/irqdomain branch is not immutable yet. So we have
>> no problem at that point. I can rebase on your branch until tomorrow
>> night. Or just rebase on mainline and we sort out the merge conflicts
>> later, i.e. delegate them to Linus so his job of pulling stuff gets
>> not completely boring.
> Hi Thomas, sorry for my introducing the broken.
>> What I'm more worried about is whether this intended change is going
>> to inflict a problem on Jiangs intention to deduce the MSI irq domain
>> from the device, which we really need for making DMAR work w/o going
>> through loops and hoops.
>> I have limited knowledge about the actual scope of iommu (DMAR) units
>> versus device/bus/host-controllers, so I would appreciate a proper
>> explanation for that from you or Jiang or both.
> In my personal opinion, if it's not necessary, we should not put stuff
> into pci_dev or pci_bus. If we plan to save msi_controller in pci_bus or
> I have a proposal, I would be appreciated if you could give some comments.
> First we refactor pci_host_bridge to make a generic
> pci_host_bridge, then we could save pci domain in it to eliminate
> arch specific functions. I aslo wanted to save msi_controller as
> pci domain, but now Jiang refactor hierarchy irq domain, and
> pci devices under the same pci host bridge may need to associate
> to different msi_controllers.
> So I want to associate a msi_controller finding ops with generic pci_host_bridge,
> then every pci device could find its msi_controller/irq_domain by a
> common function
> struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> struct msi_controller *ctrl;
> struct pci_host_bridge *host = find_pci_host_bridge(pdev->bus);
> if (host && host->pci_get_msi_controller)
> ctrl = pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev);
> return ctrl;
> If I miss something, please let me know, thanks.
That feels slightly convoluted for something that should be a very
simple operation. Does this mean you're trying to represent a situation
- a single host bridge has multiple MSI controllers,
- this bridge serves multiple busses,
- devices on the same bus can talk to different MSI controllers?
That would be the only case where the current way we pass the
msi_controller around wouldn't work.
If that's what you're trying to do, I can see how this work, but I'd
suggest you put that infrastructure in place before tearing down the
existing one. This means being having support at the host-bridge level
and reasonable defaults for the non-complicated case where bus->msi is
exactly what you want.
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/