[PATCH 4/5] irqchip: gic-v3: Add gic_get_irq_domain() to get the irqdomain of the GIC.

[Marc Zyngier]

On 16/07/15 18:14, David Daney wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 10:09 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 16/07/15 17:50, David Daney wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Patch 5 has established that you're using "virtual wire" SPIs, so we
>>>> need to work on exposing that with the normal kernel abstraction, and
>>>> not by messing with the internals of the GIC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> The MSI system has pci_enable_msix()/pci_disable_msix().
>>>
>>> I would propose something like:
>>>
>>> struct gic_spi_entry {
>>> 	int spi   /* SPI number */
>>> 	int irq;  /* kernel irq number mapped to the spi*/
>>> 	u32 msg;  /* message to be written */
>>> 	u64 assert_addr;
>>> 	u64 deassert_addr;
>>> };
>>>
>>> /* Fill in the SPI processing information */
>>> int gic_map_spi(int spi, struct gic_spi_entry *data);
>>
>> Neither.
>>
>> The way to do it is to make this a *separate* IRQ domain stacked onto
>> the SPI domain. No funky hook on the side. If it doesn't go through the
>> normal kernel API, it doesn't reach the GIC.
> 
> Yes, the irqdomain does handle mapping SPI -> irq, and the message can 
> be derived from the SPI.  However, the irqdomain infrastructure cannot 
> supply values for either assert_addr or deassert_addr.

This is why I suggested earlier (in my reply to patch 5) that you have a
look at the series I posted a couple of days ago to implement non-PCI
MSI support. This would allow you to compose the domains as such:

platform-MSI -> message-SPI -> GIC

You'd end up with a msi_msg containing the GICD_SETSPI_NSR doorbell, and
the SPI as a payload.

> Those are needed in order to use SPI.  How would you suggest that they 
> be obtained?

Two possibilities: either you derive GICD_CLRSPI_NSR by adding 8 to the
doorbell you got from the msi_msg structure (ugly, but limited to your
own code), or you extend msi_msg to cater for this case.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...