Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] PCI: endpoint: Support hardware-owned MSI-X table and PBA

[Niklas Cassel]

Hello Koichiro,

On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:11:09AM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> This is not driven by a performance target, so I do not have numbers. The
> immediate issue is correctness. ntb_hw_epf can select MSI-X, but pci-epf-vntb
> currently configures and raises MSI. I want that MSI-X path to work on RK3588
> with the controller doorbell. I will make it clear in the next cover letter
> that, with this series, a doorbell sent from ntb_tool on the pci-epf-vntb side
> of RK3588 reaches ntb_tool on the ntb_hw_epf host side when MSI-X is selected.
> I believe that is the simplest E2E test showing what this series fixes.

Okay, if the main issue is that pci-epf-vntb does not raise MSI-X, even when
ntb_hw_epf host side has requested MSI-X, then I think that the first patch
in the series should fix this, so that the fix can easily be backported.

(Right now you fix this in patch 3/3, and the fix in patch 3/3 depends on
both patches 1/3 and 2/3.)

I think that pci-epf-vntb actually respecting the configured IRQ type by the
host is a separate logical change from adding support for HW defined layout.


> I initially considered making the hardware-owned layout automatic for every EPF.
> pci-epf-ntb (not vNTB!) is the reason I did not. It currently reads
> host-programmed MSI-X entries through epf_bar[] backing and uses them to set up
> peer outbound mappings. A hardware-owned Table has no such backing, and the
> current EPC API has no generic way to read those entries. I suspect that
> supporting it there would require a broader design change. Also, I do not have
> hardware for the pci-epf-ntb bridge configuration.
> 
> pci-epf-test and nvmet-pci-epf should be easier to convert. However, converting
> only those would not remove the per-layout handling while pci-epf-ntb still uses
> an EPF-owned Table. I would prefer to handle those separately when they can be
> properly tested. This is what I meant by this part of the cover letter:
> 
>      [...]
> 
>      layouts. This avoids unnecessary changes and reduces regression risk.
>      They can use a hardware-owned layout later if/when needed.

Okay, if pci-epf-ntb is special, perhaps we should add a comment in
pci-epf-ntb which explains why it cannot support HW defined layout.

But for consistency, if we modify pci-epf-vntb, I think it would make sense
to also modify pci-epf-test and nvmet-pci-epf as well in the same series.

pci-epf-test should be easy to test, just run the pci endpoint selftest.

nvmet-pci-epf should be quite easy to test too, just run the normal fio based
testing that we usually run, and unless you see worse performance, I think we
are good. (If we see worse performance, that could be an indication that one
of the MSI-X for the different completion queues are not being correctly
triggered. By default, the host side nvme driver creates one completion queue
(and one submission queue) per host CPU.


What I suggest that you instead do something like:
Patch 1/7: pci-epf-vntb: Fix to actually use MSI-X when requested.
           This probably includes adding the code that is inside the
	   if (ret == -ENOENT) { }.
Patch 2/7: PCI: endpoint: Support hardware-owned MSI-X table and PBA
Patch 3/7: PCI: dw-rockchip: Support fixed MSI-X table and PBA on RK3588
Patch 4/7: pci-epf-vntb: Add code that calls pci_epc_get_hw_msix_layout()
           and uses that layout, if the function returned success.
Patch 5/7: pci-epf-test: Add code that calls pci_epc_get_hw_msix_layout()
           and uses that layout, if the function returned success.
Patch 6/7: nvmet-pci-epf: Add code that calls pci_epc_get_hw_msix_layout()
           and uses that layout, if the function returned success.
Patch 7/7: pci-epf-ntb: Add comment that explains why it cannot call
           pci_epc_get_hw_msix_layout() like all other EPF drivers that
	   support MSI-X.


This way, patch 1/7 can be backported, and will help all users vNTB users,
even the users that do not use RK3588 as an EPC.


> > I understand that you introduce dw_pcie_ep_msix_layout_is_hw_owned()
> > because you want an EPF driver optionally use the HW defined table.
> > But if all EPF drivers always use the HW defined table if available, I think
> > you can avoid introducing this helper, and let rockchip_pcie_raise_irq()
> > unconditionally call dw_pcie_ep_raise_msix_irq_doorbell() for case PCI_IRQ_MSIX.
> 
> Yes, under that assumption I agree. With the current mix, however, the Rockchip
> callback still has to choose the helper according to the selected layout. That
> is why the DWC code records which layout was selected.
> 
> I will update the cover letter to state the motivation and this boundary more
> directly. Does keeping the layout choice with each EPF for this reason sound
> reasonable?

Yes, since pci-epf-ntb apparently is special, I can see why you need
both ep_func->msix_hw_owned and dw_pcie_ep_msix_layout_is_hw_owned().


Kind regards,
Niklas