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

[Yun Wu (Abel)]

 On 2014/11/19 19:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>> On 2014/11/19 1:21, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> This is why the framework gives you the opportunity to provide methods
>>> that:
>>> - compose the message
>>> - program the message into the device
>>>
>>> None of that has to be PCI specific, and gives you a clean
>>> abstraction. The framework only gives you a number of shortcuts for PCI
>>> MSI, because that's what most people care about.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, and I never said Jiang's patches don't work, I was just thinking
>> that they were not that perfect.
> 
> But your magic extra layer of indirection is perfect? It's not, it
> just violates sane layering in order to support braindead hardware
> designs.
> 

Hi Thomas, Gerry and Marc,

I spent last two weeks implementing and testing my original idea about making
the sub domains generic, based on stacked domain feature. Now it comes real,
please see the attached patch.

With this patch applied, I think things will get easier.

For drivers of interrupt controllers, they need to implement:
a) struct irq_chip, gets associated in domain's map/alloc callback
b) struct irq_domain, with corresponding operations
c) create sub generic MBI domain of IRQ domain to deal with all MBI types.
This changes almost nothing of the current code.

For drivers of MBI-capable devices, they need to implement:
a) MBI operations, like mask/unmask or setting message.
This will remove current ugly arch-specific code by organizing the device
behavior into a generic structure used in generic MBI layer.

The MBI generic code will build the bridge between the two groups. So when a
new driver need to implement, either controller's or endpoint's, just code
the corresponding 'need' described above with no more work to do.

This patch (also with several other patches) is tested on Hisilicon ARM64 SoC,
with non PCI devices capable of message based interrupts. The PCI part is not
tested because it needs large refactoring work to do. So yes, the testing work
is not sufficient, but I think the patch is enough to present what I really
wanted to express. :)

A new term introduced by the patch named Message Based Interrupt (MBI) is used
for presenting the generic MSIs (which does help me avoid conflicting with the
existing code). Actually the new name is proposed by Marc several months ago,
suggesting that MSI implies too much about PCI. I think it's a good idea to use
MBI in generic code and make the MSI/MSI-x a wrapper of MBI inside the PCI core.
Anyway, naming is not the key point yet.

Finally, yes, my thoughts is not perfect, but I am just trying to make it better.

Best regards and thanks,
	Abel