On 2014/11/18 18:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>> On 2014/11/12 21:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> struct irq_chip {
>>> @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ struct irq_chip {
>>> void (*irq_release_resources)(struct irq_data *data);
>>>
>>> void (*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct
>>> msi_msg *msg);
>>> + void (*irq_write_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct
>>> msi_msg *msg);
>>
>> Hmm... It's really weird.
>> I don't think it's the interrupt controllers' responsibility to write
>> messages
>> for all the endpoint devices since the methods of configuring message
>> registers
>> may different between these devices. And theoretically, the endpoint devices
>> themselves should take the responsibility to configure their message
>> registers.
>> To say the least, the write_msg callback here still need to call some certain
>> interfaces provided by the corresponding device.
>>
>> There would be lots of ARM new devices capable of sending message
>> based interrupts to interrupt controllers, does all the drivers of
>> the devices need to expose a write_msg callback to interrupt
>> controllers?
>
> Well, writing the message _IS_ part of the interrupt controller.
>
> So in order to enable non PCI based MSI we want to have generic
> infrastructure with minimal per device/device class callbacks and of
> course you need to provide that callback for your special device.
>
> We already have non PCI based MSI controllers in x86 today and we need
> to handle the whole stuff with tons of copied coded extra for each of
> those. So consolidating it into common infrastructure allows us to get
> rid of the pointless copied code and reduce the per device effort to
> the relevant hardware specific callbacks. irq_write_msi_msg being one
> of those.
>
At least, we have the same goal.
I will illustrate my thoughts by an example.
The current code is something like:
Device A
========
void A_write_msg() { ... }
Group B
(a group of devices behave same on writing messages, i.e. PCI)
=======
void B_write_msg() { ... }
Controller
==========
irq_chip.irq_write_msi_msg () {
if (A)
A_write_msg();
if (B)
B_write_msg();
}
It's horrible when new devices come out, since we need to modify the
controller part for each new device.
What I suggested is:
MSI Core
========
struct msi_ops { .write_msg, };
struct msi_desc { .msi_ops, };
write_msg() {
X = get_dev();
irq_chip.compose_msg(X); // IRQ chips' responsibility
X_msi_ops.write_msg(); // nothing to do with IRQ chips
}
Device A
========
void A_write_msg() { ... }
A_msi_ops.write_msg = A_write_msg;
Group B
=======
void B_write_msg() { ... }
B_msi_ops.write_msg = B_write_msg;
Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.
Thanks,
Abel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
