Re: [PATCH 4/4] net: stmmac: add MSI support for Intel Quark X1000
From: Bryan O'Donoghue
Date: Wed Oct 01 2014 - 08:06:06 EST
On 01/10/14 12:55, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan O'Donoghue [mailto:pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 7:29 PM
Hi Wilson.
Seeing you post now on the PCI emumeration suggestion from Dave Miller I
see
I wasn't copied on this https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/27/190 thread so can
only respond now....
What's missing from your MSI enabling code is the PVM mask/unmask
required on the Quark X1000 bridge - for *all* downstream devices using MSI.
I realise it's not an upstreaming friendly piece of code - however - without
the PVM mask operation all MSIs on Quark should be considered unreliable.
Maybe you guys have submitted patches to the PCI layer on this already ?
If so feel free to ignore.
If not then please re-evaluate all MSI enabling code.
From the original
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/23171/eng/Board_Support_Package_Sour
ces_for_Intel_Quark_v1.0.0.7z
+#if defined(CONFIG_INTEL_QUARK_X1000_SOC)
+ #define mask_pvm(x) qrk_pci_pvm_mask(x)
+ #define unmask_pvm(x) qrk_pci_pvm_unmask(x) #else
+ #define mask_pvm(x)
+ #define unmask_pvm(x)
+#endif
+
static irqreturn_t stmmac_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
struct net_device *dev = (struct net_device *)dev_id; @@ -1601,10
+1686,12 @@ static irqreturn_t stmmac_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
return IRQ_NONE;
}
+ mask_pvm(priv->pdev);
+
/* To handle GMAC own interrupts */
if (priv->plat->has_gmac) {
- int status = priv->hw->mac->host_irq_status((void __iomem
*)
- dev->base_addr);
+ int status = priv->hw->mac->host_irq_status(priv);
+
if (unlikely(status)) {
if (status & core_mmc_tx_irq)
priv->xstats.mmc_tx_irq_n++;
@@ -1634,6 +1721,8 @@ static irqreturn_t stmmac_interrupt(int irq, void
*dev_id)
/* To handle DMA interrupts */
stmmac_dma_interrupt(priv);
+ unmask_pvm(priv->pdev);
Hi Bryan,
The MSI masking is already implemented in the MSI framework: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/pci/msi.c#L181.
I don't see a reason to upstream a local set implementation to Ethernet subsystem.
Thanks.
Hi Wilson.
Understand where you are getting your MSI enabling code from.
What I'm saying to you is that on Quark SoC X1000 there's an
*additional* requirement with respect to MSIs
That's why the reference code for the Quark BSP does PVM masking for
*all* MSI enabled code - not just ethernet.....
I'll have a review of the patches for the SoC thus far with a view to
ensuring the MSI pvm issue is adequately addressed - but just to be
clear it's emphatically *not* ethernet specific.
In essence the following additional requirement is place on the Quark
SoC when using MSIs
pvm_mask();
/* handle your interrupt */
pvm_unmask();
It's the same behaviour in the USB gadget driver...
@@ -2779,55 +2788,70 @@ static irqreturn_t pch_udc_isr(int irq, void *pdev)
{
struct pch_udc_dev *dev = (struct pch_udc_dev *) pdev;
u32 dev_intr, ep_intr;
- int i;
-
- dev_intr = pch_udc_read_device_interrupts(dev);
- ep_intr = pch_udc_read_ep_interrupts(dev);
-
- /* For a hot plug, this find that the controller is hung up. */
- if (dev_intr == ep_intr)
- if (dev_intr == pch_udc_readl(dev, UDC_DEVCFG_ADDR)) {
- dev_dbg(&dev->pdev->dev, "UDC: Hung up\n");
- /* The controller is reset */
- pch_udc_writel(dev, UDC_SRST, UDC_SRST_ADDR);
- return IRQ_HANDLED;
+ int i, events = 0;
+
+ mask_pvm(dev->pdev);
// do stuff
+ unmask_pvm(dev->pdev);
+
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
And again in the GIP block
+static irqreturn_t intel_qrk_gip_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
+{
+ irqreturn_t ret_i2c = IRQ_NONE;
+ irqreturn_t ret_gpio = IRQ_NONE;
+ struct intel_qrk_gip_data *data = (struct intel_qrk_gip_data *)dev_id;
+
+ mask_pvm(data->pci_device);
+
+ if (likely(i2c)) {
+ /* Only I2C gets platform data */
+ ret_i2c = i2c_dw_isr(irq, data->i2c_drvdata);
+ }
+
+ if (likely(gpio)) {
+ ret_gpio = intel_qrk_gpio_isr(irq, NULL);
+ }
+
+ unmask_pvm(data->pci_device);
+
+ if (likely(IRQ_HANDLED == ret_i2c || IRQ_HANDLED == ret_gpio))
+ return IRQ_HANDLED;
+
+ /* Each sub-ISR routine returns either IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE. */
+ return IRQ_NONE;
+}
Best,
BOD
--
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/