Re: [PATCH 07/10] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Split probing from its node initialization

From: Richter, Robert
Date: Fri Nov 09 2018 - 02:58:38 EST

Next message: Michal Hocko: "Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memory_hotplug: do not clear numa_node association after hot_remove"
Previous message: Manivannan Sadhasivam: "[PATCH] dt-bindings: media: i2c: Fix i2c address for OV5645 camera sensor"
In reply to: Julien Thierry: "Re: [PATCH 07/10] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Split probing from its node initialization"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 08.11.18 11:25:24, Julien Thierry wrote:
> On 07/11/18 22:03, Robert Richter wrote:

> >-static int its_init_domain(struct fwnode_handle *handle, struct its_node *its)
> >+static int its_init_domain(struct its_node *its)
> > {
> > struct irq_domain *inner_domain;
> > struct msi_domain_info *info;
> >@@ -3384,7 +3385,8 @@ static int its_init_domain(struct fwnode_handle *handle, struct its_node *its)
> > if (!info)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> >- inner_domain = irq_domain_create_tree(handle, &its_domain_ops, its);
> >+ inner_domain = irq_domain_create_tree(its->fwnode_handle,
> >+ &its_domain_ops, its);
>
> Separate change?
>
> > if (!inner_domain) {
> > kfree(info);
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >@@ -3441,8 +3443,7 @@ static int its_init_vpe_domain(void)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >-static int __init its_compute_its_list_map(struct resource *res,
> >- void __iomem *its_base)
> >+static int __init its_compute_its_list_map(struct its_node *its)
> > {
> > int its_number;
> > u32 ctlr;
> >@@ -3456,15 +3457,15 @@ static int __init its_compute_its_list_map(struct resource *res,
> > its_number = find_first_zero_bit(&its_list_map, GICv4_ITS_LIST_MAX);
> > if (its_number >= GICv4_ITS_LIST_MAX) {
> > pr_err("ITS@%pa: No ITSList entry available!\n",
> >- &res->start);
> >+ &its->phys_base);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> >- ctlr = readl_relaxed(its_base + GITS_CTLR);
> >+ ctlr = readl_relaxed(its->base + GITS_CTLR);
> > ctlr &= ~GITS_CTLR_ITS_NUMBER;
> > ctlr |= its_number << GITS_CTLR_ITS_NUMBER_SHIFT;
> >- writel_relaxed(ctlr, its_base + GITS_CTLR);
> >- ctlr = readl_relaxed(its_base + GITS_CTLR);
> >+ writel_relaxed(ctlr, its->base + GITS_CTLR);
> >+ ctlr = readl_relaxed(its->base + GITS_CTLR);
>
> This (removal of its_base parameter) also feel like a separate change.

In a separate change the motivation of the change would not be
obvious. While the change of the variable itself is trivial from the
perspective of review and testing, I decided to keep it in the context
of the overall change of this patch.

>
> Also, I would define a local variable its_base to avoid dereferencing
> its every time in order to get the base address.

Hmm, there is not much difference in reading the code then, while the
use of a local variable just adds more code without benefit. The
compiler does not care as the value is probably stored in a register
anyway. There are also other struct members, should all of them being
mirrored in a local variable?

>
> > if ((ctlr & GITS_CTLR_ITS_NUMBER) != (its_number << GITS_CTLR_ITS_NUMBER_SHIFT)) {
> > its_number = ctlr & GITS_CTLR_ITS_NUMBER;
> > its_number >>= GITS_CTLR_ITS_NUMBER_SHIFT;
> >@@ -3472,83 +3473,110 @@ static int __init its_compute_its_list_map(struct resource *res,
> >
> > if (test_and_set_bit(its_number, &its_list_map)) {
> > pr_err("ITS@%pa: Duplicate ITSList entry %d\n",
> >- &res->start, its_number);
> >+ &its->phys_base, its_number);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > return its_number;
> > }
> >
> >+static void its_free(struct its_node *its)
> >+{
> >+ raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
> >+ list_del(&its->entry);
> >+ raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
> >+
> >+ kfree(its);
> >+}
> >+
> >+static int __init its_init_one(struct its_node *its);
>
> You might as well define its_init_one here, no?

This is an intermediate definition that will be removed in a later
patch. Moving the whole code here would make the change less readable.

>
> >+
> > static int __init its_probe_one(struct resource *res,
> > struct fwnode_handle *handle, int numa_node)
> > {
> > struct its_node *its;
> >+ int err;
> >+
> >+ its = kzalloc(sizeof(*its), GFP_KERNEL);
> >+ if (!its)
> >+ return -ENOMEM;
> >+
> >+ raw_spin_lock_init(&its->lock);
> >+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&its->entry);
> >+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&its->its_device_list);
> >+ its->fwnode_handle = handle;
> >+ its->phys_base = res->start;
> >+ its->phys_size = resource_size(res);
> >+ its->numa_node = numa_node;
> >+
> >+ raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
> >+ list_add_tail(&its->entry, &its_nodes);
> >+ raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
> >+
> >+ pr_info("ITS %pR\n", res);
> >+
> >+ err = its_init_one(its);
> >+ if (err)
> >+ its_free(its);
> >+
> >+ return err;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static int __init its_init_one(struct its_node *its)
> >+{
> > void __iomem *its_base;
> > u32 val, ctlr;
> > u64 baser, tmp, typer;
> > int err;
> >
> >- its_base = ioremap(res->start, resource_size(res));
> >+ its_base = ioremap(its->phys_base, its->phys_size);
> > if (!its_base) {
> >- pr_warn("ITS@%pa: Unable to map ITS registers\n", &res->start);
> >- return -ENOMEM;
> >+ pr_warn("ITS@%pa: Unable to map ITS registers\n", &its->phys_base);
> >+ err = -ENOMEM;
> >+ goto fail;
> > }
> >
> > val = readl_relaxed(its_base + GITS_PIDR2) & GIC_PIDR2_ARCH_MASK;
> > if (val != 0x30 && val != 0x40) {
> >- pr_warn("ITS@%pa: No ITS detected, giving up\n", &res->start);
> >+ pr_warn("ITS@%pa: No ITS detected, giving up\n", &its->phys_base);
> > err = -ENODEV;
> > goto out_unmap;
> > }
> >
> > err = its_force_quiescent(its_base);
> > if (err) {
> >- pr_warn("ITS@%pa: Failed to quiesce, giving up\n", &res->start);
> >+ pr_warn("ITS@%pa: Failed to quiesce, giving up\n", &its->phys_base);
> > goto out_unmap;
> > }
> >
> >- pr_info("ITS %pR\n", res);
> >-
> >- its = kzalloc(sizeof(*its), GFP_KERNEL);
> >- if (!its) {
> >- err = -ENOMEM;
> >- goto out_unmap;
> >- }
> >-
> >- raw_spin_lock_init(&its->lock);
> >- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&its->entry);
> >- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&its->its_device_list);
> > typer = gic_read_typer(its_base + GITS_TYPER);
> > its->base = its_base;
> >- its->phys_base = res->start;
> > its->ite_size = GITS_TYPER_ITT_ENTRY_SIZE(typer);
> > its->device_ids = GITS_TYPER_DEVBITS(typer);
> > its->is_v4 = !!(typer & GITS_TYPER_VLPIS);
> > if (its->is_v4) {
> > if (!(typer & GITS_TYPER_VMOVP)) {
> >- err = its_compute_its_list_map(res, its_base);
> >+ err = its_compute_its_list_map(its);
> > if (err < 0)
> >- goto out_free_its;
> >+ goto out_unmap;
> >
> > its->list_nr = err;
> >
> > pr_info("ITS@%pa: Using ITS number %d\n",
> >- &res->start, err);
> >+ &its->phys_base, err);
> > } else {
> >- pr_info("ITS@%pa: Single VMOVP capable\n", &res->start);
> >+ pr_info("ITS@%pa: Single VMOVP capable\n",
> >+ &its->phys_base);
> > }
> > }
> >
> >- its->numa_node = numa_node;
> >-
> > its->cmd_base = (void *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
> > get_order(ITS_CMD_QUEUE_SZ));
> > if (!its->cmd_base) {
> > err = -ENOMEM;
> >- goto out_free_its;
> >+ goto out_unmap;
> > }
> > its->cmd_write = its->cmd_base;
> >- its->fwnode_handle = handle;
> > its->get_msi_base = its_irq_get_msi_base;
> > its->msi_domain_flags = IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_MSI_REMAP;
> >
> >@@ -3597,13 +3625,11 @@ static int __init its_probe_one(struct resource *res,
> > if (GITS_TYPER_HCC(typer))
> > its->flags |= ITS_FLAGS_SAVE_SUSPEND_STATE;
> >
> >- err = its_init_domain(handle, its);
> >+ err = its_init_domain(its);
>
> I'm not sure what is the logic for "this goes in probe, this goes in init?".

It is fairly simple, gic-its register access is done in init.
Everything that is detected during devicetree or ACPI device discovery
is done in the probe function that collects all data in struct
its_node.

>
> > if (err)
> > goto out_free_tables;
> >
> >- raw_spin_lock(&its_lock);
> >- list_add_tail(&its->entry, &its_nodes);
> >- raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
> >+ pr_info("ITS@%pa: ITS node added\n", &its->phys_base);
> >
> > return 0;

Thanks,

-Robert

Next message: Michal Hocko: "Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, memory_hotplug: do not clear numa_node association after hot_remove"
Previous message: Manivannan Sadhasivam: "[PATCH] dt-bindings: media: i2c: Fix i2c address for OV5645 camera sensor"
In reply to: Julien Thierry: "Re: [PATCH 07/10] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Split probing from its node initialization"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]