public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: wangyijing@huawei•com (Yijing Wang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 09:54:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546E9B60.9070706@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411202355060.6439@nanos>

>> Thomas, let me know if you want to do that.  I suppose we could add a new
>> patch to add it back, but that would leave bisection broken for the
>> interval between c167caf8d174 and the patch that adds it back.
> 
> Fortunately my irq/irqdomain branch is not immutable yet. So we have
> no problem at that point. I can rebase on your branch until tomorrow
> night. Or just rebase on mainline and we sort out the merge conflicts
> later, i.e. delegate them to Linus so his job of pulling stuff gets
> not completely boring.

Hi Thomas, sorry for my introducing the broken.

> 
> What I'm more worried about is whether this intended change is going
> to inflict a problem on Jiangs intention to deduce the MSI irq domain
> from the device, which we really need for making DMAR work w/o going
> through loops and hoops.
> 
> I have limited knowledge about the actual scope of iommu (DMAR) units
> versus device/bus/host-controllers, so I would appreciate a proper
> explanation for that from you or Jiang or both.

In my personal opinion, if it's not necessary, we should not put stuff
into pci_dev or pci_bus. If we plan to save msi_controller in pci_bus or
pci_dev.
I have a proposal, I would be appreciated if you could give some comments.
First we refactor pci_host_bridge to make a generic
pci_host_bridge, then we could save pci domain in it to eliminate
arch specific functions. I aslo wanted to save msi_controller as
pci domain, but now Jiang refactor hierarchy irq domain, and
pci devices under the same pci host bridge may need to associate
to different msi_controllers.

So I want to associate a msi_controller finding ops with generic pci_host_bridge,
then every pci device could find its msi_controller/irq_domain by a
common function

E.g

struct msi_controller *pci_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
{
	struct msi_controller *ctrl;
	struct pci_host_bridge *host = find_pci_host_bridge(pdev->bus);
	if (host && host->pci_get_msi_controller)
		ctrl = pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev);

	return ctrl;	
}

If I miss something, please let me know, thanks.

Thanks!
Yijing.


> 
> My guts feeling tells me that anything less granular than the bus
> level is wrong and according to my limited knowledge Intel even has
> DMARs which are assigned to a single device it's even more wrong. So
> the proper change would be not to push it from bus to something above
> the bus, but instead make it a per device property.
> 
> But my knowledge there is limited, so I rely on the PCI/architecture
> experts to sort that out.
> 
> Let me know ASAP.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> .
> 


-- 
Thanks!
Yijing

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-11-21  1:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-20 16:31 Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains Marc Zyngier
2014-11-20 21:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-20 23:10   ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-20 23:30     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-21  9:33       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21  1:54     ` Yijing Wang [this message]
2014-11-21  2:25       ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  3:46         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 10:00       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 17:31       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-22  4:13         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:22 ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:46   ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21  2:03     ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  2:12       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:05     ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  8:46       ` Lucas Stach
2014-11-21 10:29     ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:49       ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21 11:30         ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 12:04       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 10:11   ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 11:57     ` Yijing Wang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=546E9B60.9070706@huawei.com \
    --to=wangyijing@huawei$(echo .)com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox