Re: [PATCH v2 00/22] Use MSI chip framework to configure MSI/MSI-X in all platforms

From: Liviu Dudau
Date: Sun Sep 28 2014 - 07:22:46 EST

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:16:12AM +0800, Yijing Wang wrote:
> >>>> What I would like to see is a way of creating the pci_host_bridge structure outside
> >>>> the pci_create_root_bus(). That would then allow us to pass this sort of platform
> >>>> details like associated msi_chip into the host bridge and the child busses will
> >>>> have an easy way of finding the information needed by finding the root bus and then
> >>>> the host bridge structure. Then the generic pci_scan_root_bus() can be used by (mostly)
> >>>> everyone and the drivers can remove their kludges that try to work around the
> >>>> current limitations.
> >>
> >> So I think maybe save msi chip in PCI arch sysdata is a good candidate.
> >
> > Except that arch sysdata at the moment is an opaque pointer. I am all in favour in
> > changing the type of sysdata from void* into pci_host_bridge* and arches can wrap their old
> > sysdata around the pci_host_bridge*.
> I inspected every arch and found there are almost no common stuff,

I will disagree here. Most (all?) of the structures that are passed as sysdata argument to
pci_create_root_bus() or pci_scan_root_bus() have a set of resources for storing the MEM and
IO ranges, which struct pci_host_bridge already has. So that can be factored out of the
arch code. Same for pci_domain_nr. Then there are some variables that are used for communication
with the platform code due to convoluted way(s) in which PCI code gets instantiated.

What I am arguing here is not that the arch equivalent of pci_host_bridge structure is already
common, but that by moving the members that are common out of arch sysdata into pci_host_bridge
we will have more commonality and it will be easier to re-factor the code.

> and generic data struct should
> be created in generic PCI code.

Not necessarily. What I have in mind is something like this:

- drivers/pci/ exports pci_init_host_bridge() that does the initialisation of bridge->windows
and anything else that is needed (like find_pci_host_bridge() function).
- arch code does:

struct pci_controller {
struct pci_host_bridge bridge;

#define to_pci_controller(bridge) container_of(bridge, struct pci_controller, bridge)

static inline struct pci_controller *get_host_controller(const struct pci_bus *bus)
struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = find_pci_host_bridge(bus);
if (bridge)
return to_pci_controller(bridge);

return NULL;

int arch_pci_init(....)
struct pci_controller *hose;
hose = kzalloc(sizeof(*hose), GFP_KERNEL);
pci_scan_root_bus(...., &hose->bridge, &resources);
return 0;

Then finding the right structure will be easy.

> Another, I don't like associate msi chip and every PCI device, further more,
> almost all platforms except arm have only one MSI controller, and currently, PCI enumerating code doesn't need
> to know the MSI chip details, like for legacy IRQ, PCI device doesn't need to know which IRQ controller they
> should deliver IRQ to. I would think more about it, and hope other PCI guys can give some comments, especially from Bjorn.

I wasn't suggesing to associate an msi chip with every PCI device, but with the pci_host_bridge.
I don't expect a host bridge to have more than one msi chip, so that should be OK. Also, I'm
thinking that getting the associated msi chip should be some sort of pci_host_bridge ops function,
and for arches that don't care about MSI it doesn't get implemented.

Best regards,

> Thanks!
> Yijing.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Liviu
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think both issues are orthogonal. Last time I checked a lot of work
> >>> was still necessary to unify host bridges enough so that it could be
> >>> shared across architectures. But perhaps some of that work has
> >>> happened in the meantime.
> >>>
> >>> But like I said, when you create the root bus, you can easily attach the
> >>> MSI chip to it.
> >>>
> >>> Thierry
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks!
> >> Yijing
> >>
> >>
> >
> --
> Thanks!
> Yijing

( )
\ ( Oooo.
\_) ( )
) /

One small step
for me ...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at