RE: [PATCH 3/4] irqchip/sifive-plic: Separate irq_chip for muiltiple PLIC instances

[Anup Patel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 16 May 2020 18:46
> To: Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Paul Walmsley
> <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jason
> Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@xxxxxxx>; Alistair
> Francis <Alistair.Francis@xxxxxxx>; Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] irqchip/sifive-plic: Separate irq_chip for muiltiple PLIC
> instances
> 
> On 2020-05-16 14:01, Anup Patel wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: 16 May 2020 17:59
> >> To: Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@xxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Paul Walmsley
> >> <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >> Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Atish Patra
> >> <Atish.Patra@xxxxxxx>; Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@xxxxxxx>;
> >> Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >> linux-
> >> riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] irqchip/sifive-plic: Separate irq_chip for
> >> muiltiple PLIC instances
> >>
> >> On 2020-05-16 07:39, Anup Patel wrote:
> >> > To distinguish interrupts from multiple PLIC instances, we use a
> >> > per-PLIC irq_chip instance with a different name.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 28
> >> > +++++++++++++++-------------
> >> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> > b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> > index 2d3db927a551..e42fc082ad18 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> >> > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@
> >> >  #define	PLIC_ENABLE_THRESHOLD		0
> >> >
> >> >  struct plic_priv {
> >> > +	struct irq_chip chip;
> >> >  	struct cpumask lmask;
> >> >  	struct irq_domain *irqdomain;
> >> >  	void __iomem *regs;
> >> > @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ struct plic_handler {
> >> >  	void __iomem		*enable_base;
> >> >  	struct plic_priv	*priv;
> >> >  };
> >> > +static unsigned int plic_count;
> >> >  static bool plic_cpuhp_setup_done;  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct
> >> > plic_handler, plic_handlers);
> >> >
> >> > @@ -164,20 +166,12 @@ static void plic_irq_eoi(struct irq_data *d)
> >> >  	writel(d->hwirq, handler->hart_base + CONTEXT_CLAIM);  }
> >> >
> >> > -static struct irq_chip plic_chip = {
> >> > -	.name		= "SiFive PLIC",
> >> > -	.irq_mask	= plic_irq_mask,
> >> > -	.irq_unmask	= plic_irq_unmask,
> >> > -	.irq_eoi	= plic_irq_eoi,
> >> > -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> > -	.irq_set_affinity = plic_set_affinity,
> >> > -#endif
> >> > -};
> >> > -
> >> >  static int plic_irqdomain_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int irq,
> >> >  			      irq_hw_number_t hwirq)
> >> >  {
> >> > -	irq_domain_set_info(d, irq, hwirq, &plic_chip, d->host_data,
> >> > +	struct plic_priv *priv = d->host_data;
> >> > +
> >> > +	irq_domain_set_info(d, irq, hwirq, &priv->chip, d->host_data,
> >> >  			    handle_fasteoi_irq, NULL, NULL);
> >> >  	irq_set_noprobe(irq);
> >> >  	return 0;
> >> > @@ -294,6 +288,14 @@ static int __init plic_init(struct device_node
> >> > *node,
> >> >  	if (!priv)
> >> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >> >
> >> > +	priv->chip.name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "PLIC%d", plic_count++);
> >> > +	priv->chip.irq_mask = plic_irq_mask,
> >> > +	priv->chip.irq_unmask = plic_irq_unmask,
> >> > +	priv->chip.irq_eoi = plic_irq_eoi, #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> > +	priv->chip.irq_set_affinity = plic_set_affinity, #endif
> >> > +
> >> >  	priv->regs = of_iomap(node, 0);
> >> >  	if (WARN_ON(!priv->regs)) {
> >> >  		error = -EIO;
> >> > @@ -383,9 +385,9 @@ static int __init plic_init(struct device_node
> >> > *node,
> >> >  	}
> >> >
> >> >  	pr_info("interrupt-controller at 0x%llx "
> >> > -		"(interrupts=%d, contexts=%d, handlers=%d)\n",
> >> > +		"(interrupts=%d, contexts=%d, handlers=%d) (%s)\n",
> >> >  		(unsigned long long)iores.start, nr_irqs,
> >> > -		nr_contexts, nr_handlers);
> >> > +		nr_contexts, nr_handlers, priv->chip.name);
> >> >  	set_handle_irq(plic_handle_irq);
> >> >  	return 0;
> >>
> >> I really dislike this patch for multiple reasons:
> >>
> >> - Allocating a new struc irq_chip just for a string seems over the
> >> top,
> >>    specially as all the *useful* stuff stays the same.
> >>
> >> - Even if I hate it, /proc is API. I'm sure something, somewhere is
> >>    parsing this. Changing the string is likely to confuse it.
> >
> > AFAIK, we don't have scripts in RISC-V world that depend on
> > /proc/interrupts content. May be in future such scripts will show up.
> 
> How do you know that? Do you keep an exhaustive repository of all the possible
> parsers of /proc/cpuinfo (rhetorical question)?
> 
> > For system with multiple PLICs, we are seeing same "SiFive PLIC"
> > string for all PLIC interrupts in "cat /proc/interrupts". I am trying
> > to assign different string based on PLIC instance. This is similar to
> > what GICv2 driver is doing (e.g. GIC-0, GIC-1, ... in
> > /proc/interrupts).
> 
> Which was a *very* bad idea the first place, and I wish I could get rid of it. I
> cannot, for the reason outlined above (it's ABI).
> Furthermore, in this case, the GICs are different (they are cascaded).
> In your case, they have the same position in the interrupt hierarchy.
> 
> > Is there a better way to do this ?
> >
> >>
> >> - If you do this for debug purposes, then CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_DEBUGFS
> >>    is the right way to look up the information.
> >>
> >> - If, for reasons that are beyond me, you actually *need* this, then
> >>    implementing irq_print_chip in your irq_chip structure is the way
> >>    to go.
> >>
> >> But frankly, I'd rather you drop this altogether.
> >
> > I just want to differentiate which interrupt belongs to which PLIC
> > Instance in /proc/interrupts. I can take a different approach if you
> > suggest.
> 
> I *have* given you a way to implement that in a better way. But again, I'd
> rather you *don't* do it for the reason I have outlined above.

I explored kernel/irq/proc.c and we can achieve what this patch does
by implementing irq_print_chip() callback of "struct irq_chip" so we
certainly don't need separate "struct irq_chip" for each PLIC instance.

I will implement irq_print_chip() callback in v2 series.

Regards,
Anup