On 19.12.2013, at 16:39, bharat.bhus...@freescale.com wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:55 AM >> To: Alexander Graf >> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; Wood Scott-B07421; QEMU Developers; qemu-ppc; >> Bhushan >> Bharat-R65777 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ppc-e500: implement PCI INTx routing >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:53:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 28.11.2013, at 07:35, Bharat Bhushan <r65...@freescale.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This patch adds pci pin to irq_num routing callback Without this >>>> patch we gets below warning >>>> >>>> " >>>> PCI: Bug - unimplemented PCI INTx routing (e500-pcihost) >>>> qemu-system-ppc64: PCI: Bug - unimplemented PCI INTx routing >>>> (e500-pcihost) " >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhus...@freescale.com> >>>> --- >>>> hw/pci-host/ppce500.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- >>>> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c b/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c index >>>> 49bfcc6..3c4cf9e 100644 >>>> --- a/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c >>>> +++ b/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c >>>> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ struct PPCE500PCIState { >>>> struct pci_inbound pib[PPCE500_PCI_NR_PIBS]; >>>> uint32_t gasket_time; >>>> qemu_irq irq[PCI_NUM_PINS]; >>>> + uint32_t irq_num[PCI_NUM_PINS]; >>>> uint32_t first_slot; >>>> /* mmio maps */ >>>> MemoryRegion container; >>>> @@ -267,13 +268,26 @@ static int mpc85xx_pci_map_irq(PCIDevice >>>> *pci_dev, int pin) >>>> >>>> static void mpc85xx_pci_set_irq(void *opaque, int pin, int level) { >>>> - qemu_irq *pic = opaque; >>>> + PPCE500PCIState *s = opaque; >>>> + qemu_irq *pic = s->irq;; >>> >>> Double semicolon? > > Ok, will correct. > >>> >>>> >>>> pci_debug("%s: PCI irq %d, level:%d\n", __func__, pin , level); >>>> >>>> qemu_set_irq(pic[pin], level); >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static PCIINTxRoute e500_route_intx_pin_to_irq(void *opaque, int >>>> +pin) { >>>> + PCIINTxRoute route; >>>> + PPCE500PCIState *s = opaque; >>>> + >>>> + route.mode = PCI_INTX_ENABLED; >>>> + route.irq = s->irq_num[pin]; >>>> + >>>> + pci_debug("%s: PCI irq-pin = %d, irq_num= %d\n", __func__, pin, >> route.irq); >>>> + return route; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> static const VMStateDescription vmstate_pci_outbound = { >>>> .name = "pci_outbound", >>>> .version_id = 0, >>>> @@ -350,12 +364,13 @@ static int e500_pcihost_initfn(SysBusDevice >>>> *dev) >>>> >>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(s->irq); i++) { >>>> sysbus_init_irq(dev, &s->irq[i]); >>>> + s->irq_num[i] = i + 1; >>> >>> Doesn't this duplicate the logic from ppce500_pci_map_irq_slot()? I don't >> understand the purpose of this whole exercise to be honest. >>> >>> Michael, could you please shed some light on this? >>> >>> >>> Alex >> >> This is printed by pci_device_route_intx_to_irq - it's used by device >> assignment >> and vfio to figure out which irq does a given pci device drive. > > Yes, exactly same reason.
Is there any way we could get rid of the information duplication? The fact that INTA/B/C/D are mapped to 1,2,3,4 is really a configuration parameter that should only live at a single spot. Alex
