Re: [patch 08/16] genirq: Introduce callback irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg

[Yun Wu (Abel)]

On 2014/11/18 21:43, Jiang Liu wrote:

> On 2014/11/18 21:33, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>> On 2014/11/18 18:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>>> On 2014/11/12 21:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>  struct irq_chip {
>>>>> @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ struct irq_chip {
>>>>>  	void		(*irq_release_resources)(struct irq_data *data);
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	void		(*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>>>> +	void		(*irq_write_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg *msg);
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... It's really weird.
>>>> I don't think it's the interrupt controllers' responsibility to write messages
>>>> for all the endpoint devices since the methods of configuring message registers
>>>> may different between these devices. And theoretically, the endpoint devices
>>>> themselves should take the responsibility to configure their message registers.
>>>> To say the least, the write_msg callback here still need to call some certain
>>>> interfaces provided by the corresponding device.
>>>>
>>>> There would be lots of ARM new devices capable of sending message
>>>> based interrupts to interrupt controllers, does all the drivers of
>>>> the devices need to expose a write_msg callback to interrupt
>>>> controllers?
>>>
>>> Well, writing the message _IS_ part of the interrupt controller.
>>>
>>> So in order to enable non PCI based MSI we want to have generic
>>> infrastructure with minimal per device/device class callbacks and of
>>> course you need to provide that callback for your special device.
>>>
>>> We already have non PCI based MSI controllers in x86 today and we need
>>> to handle the whole stuff with tons of copied coded extra for each of
>>> those. So consolidating it into common infrastructure allows us to get
>>> rid of the pointless copied code and reduce the per device effort to
>>> the relevant hardware specific callbacks. irq_write_msi_msg being one
>>> of those.
>>>
>>
>> At least, we have the same goal.
>> I will illustrate my thoughts by an example.
>> The current code is something like:
>>
>> Device A
>> ========
>> void A_write_msg() { ... }
>>
>> Group B
>> (a group of devices behave same on writing messages, i.e. PCI)
>> =======
>> void B_write_msg() { ... }
>>
>> Controller
>> ==========
>> irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg () {
>> 	if (A)
>> 		A_write_msg();
>> 	if (B)
>> 		B_write_msg();
>> }
>>
>> It's horrible when new devices come out, since we need to modify the
>> controller part for each new device.
>> What I suggested is:
>>
>> MSI Core
>> ========
>> struct msi_ops { .write_msg, };
>> struct msi_desc { .msi_ops, };
>>
>> write_msg() {
>> 	X = get_dev();
>> 	irq_chip.compose_msg(X);	// IRQ chips' responsibility
>> 	X_msi_ops.write_msg();		// nothing to do with IRQ chips
>> }
>>
>> Device A
>> ========
>> void A_write_msg() { ... }
>> A_msi_ops.write_msg = A_write_msg;
>>
>> Group B
>> =======
>> void B_write_msg() { ... }
>> B_msi_ops.write_msg = B_write_msg;
>>
>> Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.
> Hi Yun,
> 	We provide an irq_chip for each type of interrupt controller
> instead of devices. For the example mentioned above, if device A
> and Group B has different interrupt controllers, we just need to
> implement irq_chip_A and irq_chip_B and set irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg()
> to suitable callbacks.
> 	The framework already achieves what you you want:)

What if device A and group B have the same interrupt controller?

Regards,
	Abel

--
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/