Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI: brcmstb: add MSI capability

[Marc Zyngier]

Hi Nicolas,

On 2019-11-11 12:31, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> thanks for the review!
>
> On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 16:49 +0109, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2019-11-06 22:54, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > From: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This commit adds MSI to the Broadcom STB PCIe host controller. It
> > > does
> > > not add MSIX since that functionality is not in the HW.  The MSI
> > > controller is physically located within the PCIe block, however,
> > > there
> > > is no reason why the MSI controller could not be moved elsewhere 
> > in
> > > the future.
> > >
> > > Since the internal Brcmstb MSI controller is intertwined with the
> > > PCIe
> > > controller, it is not its own platform device but rather part of 
> > the
> > > PCIe platform device.
> > >
> > > This is based on Jim's original submission[1] with some slight
> > > changes
> > > regarding how pcie->msi_target_addr is decided.
> > >
> > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10605955/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Co-developed-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pci/controller/Kconfig        |   2 +-
> > >  drivers/pci/controller/pcie-brcmstb.c | 333
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  2 files changed, 332 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

[...]

> > > +static struct msi_domain_info brcm_msi_domain_info = {
> > > +	.flags	= (MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_DOM_OPS | MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS |
> > > +		   MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSIX),
> >
> > Is there a particular reason for not supporting MultiMSI? I won't 
> > miss
> > it, but it might be worth documenting the restriction if the HW 
> > cannot
> > support it (though I can't immediately see why).
>
> There is no actual restriction. As Jim tells me, there never was the 
> need for
> it. If it's fine with you, we'll leave that as an enhancement for the 
> future,
> specially since the RPi's XHCI device only uses one MSI interrupt.

Sure, that's fine. But as soon as someone takes this SoC and sticks it 
on
a different board (RPi CM4 anyone?), this will become a requirement (I 
thought
MultiMSI dead 4 years ago, and have been proved wrong many times 
since).

> > > +	.chip	= &brcm_msi_irq_chip,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static void brcm_pcie_msi_isr(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
> > > +	struct brcm_msi *msi;
> > > +	unsigned long status, virq;
> > > +	u32 mask, bit, hwirq;
> > > +	struct device *dev;
> > > +
> > > +	chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
> > > +	msi = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
> > > +	mask = msi->intr_legacy_mask;
> > > +	dev = msi->dev;
> > > +
> > > +	while ((status = bcm_readl(msi->intr_base + STATUS) & mask)) {
> >
> > Is this loop really worth it? If, as I imagine, this register is at 
> > the
> > end of a wet piece of string, this additional read (likely to return
> > zero)
> > will have a measurable latency impact...
>
> I think this one was cargo-culted, TBH this pattern is all over the 
> place.
> Though, now that you point it out, I can't really provide a 
> justification for
> it. Maybe Jim can contradict me here, but It's working fine without 
> it.

I know this pattern is ultra common (hey, the GIC uses it), but I'm
somehow doubtful of its benefit. On GICv3, not reading the status
register again has given us a performance boost for most workloads.

[...]

> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Make sure we are not masking MSIs.  Note that MSIs can be
> > > masked,
> > > +	 * but that occurs on the PCIe EP device
> >
> > That's not a guarantee, specially with plain MultiMSI. I'm actually
> > minded to move the masking to be purely local on the MSI controllers
> > I maintain.
>
> Sorry, I'm a little lost here. The way I understand it after reset, 
> even with
> multiMSI, on the EP side all vectors are umasked. So it would make
> sense to do
> the same on the controller.
>
> The way I see it, we want to avoid using this register anyway, as
> with multiMSI
> we'd only get function wide masking, which I guess is not all that 
> useful.

Yeah, I wasn't 100% clear. Unless you have MSI-X, there is no guarantee
to have a mask bit per MSI. Multi-MSI definitely has only this problem.

My advice would be to let the PCI layer deal with enabling/disabling
interrupts at the endpoint level, and let this driver manage the
masking at its own level, using the MASK registers.

Thanks,

        M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...