Re: [PATCH v1] x86/platform/intel-mid: Make IRQ allocation a bit more flexible
From: Bjorn Helgaas
Date: Fri Aug 04 2017 - 09:24:28 EST
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 03:09:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 17:08 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > In the future we would use dynamic allocation for IRQ which brings
> > > non-1:1 mapping for IOAPIC domain. Thus, we need to respect return
> > > value
> > > of mp_map_gsi_to_irq() and assign it back to the device structure.
> > >
> > > Besides that we need to read GSI from interrupt pin register to
> > > avoid
> > > cases when some drivers will try to initialize PCI device twice in a
> > > row
> > > which will call pcibios_enable_irq() twice as well.
> > This seems sort of suspect. It doesn't seem robust to rely on the
> > value of PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE being zero before pcibios_enable_irq().
> So, you are telling that it's possible to get pcibios_enable_irq()
> called with PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE == 0?
I don't know about that. I'm just saying that it sounds like you're
relying on some condition that is hard to verify. PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE
is read/write and it's hard to know what, if anything, BIOS did with
> > Can't we make pcibios_enable_irq() idempotent? I guess I don't
> > understand the real problem here.
> Currently there is no problem here.
> Firmware assigns IRQ line and wrote this to the configuration space.
> Intel MID uses 1:1 mapping (IRQ domain is STRICT), so, it just allocates
> a vector inside kernel with the very same number.
> If we switch to dynamic allocation (it's a default for ACPI case), _on
> this platform_ we will get wrong allocation in the IOAPIC since mapping
> is not 1:1 anymore.
> That's what I'm trying to avoid (dev->irq after this patch points
> correctly to dynamically allocated number).
> For old SFI enabled platforms it will not make any change.
> Note, there is no legacy PIC on this platform (as same case as for ACPI
> HW reduced platforms), just IOAPIC.
> > Is this really two separate patches that could be separated?
> I didn't get this, what separation you see might be applied here?
The "Besides that" in your changelog suggested that "here is another
change lumped into this patch." I was wondering if the "read GSI from
PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE" part could be separated out. That makes me wonder
whether this is really safe, since GSIs are 32 bits, but
PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE is only 8 bits. I don't know enough to know why
this is safe in this case.