Re: [PATCH v1] irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: Fix irq_set_type for sei and nsr

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, Jan 20 2025 at 17:57, Stefan Eichenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 09:45:43AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 17 2025 at 19:03, Stefan Eichenberger wrote:
>> > It seems that irq_chip_set_type_parent is not failing. By adding some
>> > debug messages to kernel/irq/manage.c I found that irqd_get_trigger_type
>> > returns IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING even though it should return
>> > IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH according to the device tree. Maybe this was fixed
>> > between 6.10 and 6.12 but I need to analyze that again in more detail.
>> 
>> The trigger type is fixed up in mvebu_icu_irq_domain_translate(), but
>> that should be the same with the new code in mvebu_icu_translate().
>> 
>> Can you instrument mvebu_icu_translate() and validate that it is
>> 
>>     1) Invoked at all
>> 
>>     2) The type fixup is done:
>> 
>>        if (msi_data->subset_data->icu_group == ICU_GRP_SEI)
>>               *type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING;
>
> Thanks a lot for pointing me in the right direction. I think I found
> what is going on. My instrumentation showed that we still end up in that
> function but the translation does not work. I think the reason is that
> the msi_data conversion is wrong. The following patch would solve the
> issue:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c
> index b337f6c05f18..4eebed39880a 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu.c
> @@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ static int mvebu_icu_translate(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_fwspec *fwspec,
>                                unsigned long *hwirq, unsigned int *type)
>  {
>         unsigned int param_count = static_branch_unlikely(&legacy_bindings) ? 3 : 2;
> -       struct mvebu_icu_msi_data *msi_data = d->host_data;
> +       struct msi_domain_info *info = d->host_data;
> +       struct mvebu_icu_msi_data *msi_data = info->chip_data;
>         struct mvebu_icu *icu = msi_data->icu;
>
>         /* Check the count of the parameters in dt */
>
> Do you agree with that fix? If so I will prepare a proper patch.

Duh, yes. What was I thinking?

Thanks,

        tglx