[PATCH 3/3] PCI: Xilinx NWL PCIe: Fix Error for multi function device for legacy interrupts.

[Marc Zyngier]

On 12/09/16 23:02, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:19:55AM +0000, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bharat,
>>>>>>>> @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ static int nwl_pcie_init_irq_domain(struct
>>>>>>>> nwl_pcie
>>>>>>> *pcie)
>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     pcie->legacy_irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(legacy_intc_node,
>>>>>>>> -                                                   INTX_NUM,
>>>>>>>> +                                                   INTX_NUM + 1,
>>>>>>>>                                                     &legacy_domain_ops,
>>>>>>>>                                                     pcie);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This feels like the wrong thing to do. You have INTX_NUM irqs, so
>>>>>>> the domain allocation should reflect this. On the other hand, the
>>>>>>> way the driver currently deals with mappings is quite broken
>>>>>>> (consistently adding 1 to
>>>>> the HW interrupt).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without above change I get following crash in kernel while booting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441684] error: hwirq 0x4 is too large for dummy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441694] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441698] WARNING: at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:344
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441702] Modules linked in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441706]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441714] CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.4.0 #8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441718] Hardware name: xlnx,zynqmp (DT)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441723] task: ffffffc071886b80 ti: ffffffc071888000 task.ti:
>>>>> ffffffc071888000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441732] PC is at irq_domain_associate+0x138/0x1c0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [    2.441738] LR is at irq_domain_associate+0x138/0x1c0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In kernel/irq/irqdomain.c function irq_domain_associate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (WARN(hwirq >= domain->hwirq_max,
>>>>>>                  "error: hwirq 0x%x is too large for %s\n", (int)hwirq, domain-
>>>> name))
>>>>>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here the hwirq and hwirq_max are equal to 4 without the above
>>>>>> condition
>>>>> (INTX_NUM + 1) due to which crash is coming.
>>>>>> This is happening as the legacy interrupts are starting from 1 (INTA).
>>>>>
>>>>> I understood that. I'm still persisting in saying that you have the wrong fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your domain should always allocate many interrupts as you have
>>>>> interrupt sources. These interrupts (hwirq) should be numbered from 0 to (n-
>>> 1).
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, but here comes the problem the hwirq for legacy interrupts
>>>> will start at 0x1 to 0x4 (INTA to INTD) and these values are as per
>>>> PCIe specification for legacy interrupts. So these cannot be numbered
>>>> from 0. So when 0x4 (INTD) for a multi-function device comes the crash
>>>> occurs.
>>>
>>> So who provides this hwirq? Who calls irq_domain_associate() with hwirq set to
>>> 4?
>>>
>> PCIe subsystem invokes pcibios_add_device function in arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c for every pci device.
>> The purpose of this function is to assign dev->irq using of_irq_parse_and_map_pci.
>> of_irq_parse_and_map_pci invokes of_irq_parse_pci where it reads PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN from configuration space and saves it
>> in parameter of struct of_phandle_args.
>> This structure is passed to irq_create_of_mapping where it invokes irq_create_fwspec_mapping.
>> irq_create_fwspec_mapping invokes irq_domain_translate and gets hwirq, here the above saved PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN value is assigned 
>> to hwirq (*hwirq = fwspec->param[0]).
>> And then using this hwirq irq_create_mapping -> irq_domain_associate were invoked and mapping is created for virtual irq with this hwirq.
>> So for any end point PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN value starts from 0x1 to 0x4 and so hwirq starts from 0x1 to 0x4.
>>
>> So the values are more generic w.r.t to protocol, that's why hwirq will range from 0x1 to 0x4. 
>> And then if you check pcie-altera.c they are doing this adding one in their handler and while creating legacy domain.
> 
> Is this resolved yet?  Marc, are you happy, or should we iterate on this
> again?


Ah, sorry to have dropped the ball on this patch.

I guess that given that the infrastructure imposes the hwirq range on
the host drivers, Bharat's approach is the only way (and a number of
other host drivers are already slightly broken). I'll try and have a
look at solving this at the generic level. In the meantime:

Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>

Thanks,

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