[PATCH 19/24] irqchip/gic-v5: Add GICv5 IRS/SPI support
Lorenzo Pieralisi
lpieralisi at kernel.org
Wed Apr 9 00:40:52 PDT 2025
On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 09:02:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08 2025 at 12:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > +struct iaffid_entry {
> > + u16 iaffid;
> > + bool valid;
> > +};
>
> See the previous documentation link and search for struct definitions on
> that page.
Right, will fix.
> > +static int gicv5_irs_wait_for_spi_op(struct gicv5_irs_chip_data *irs_data)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + u32 statusr;
>
> See documentaion...
>
> > + ret = readl_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(
> > + irs_data->irs_base + GICV5_IRS_SPI_STATUSR, statusr,
> > + FIELD_GET(GICV5_IRS_SPI_STATUSR_IDLE, statusr), 1,
> > + USEC_PER_SEC);
>
> See previous mail about how to make stuff like this readable. My eyes
> bleed already.
>
> > + if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) {
>
> unlikely(ret == ...) perhaps?
Will change it.
> > + pr_err_ratelimited("Time out waiting for IRS SPI to be configured\n");
>
> > +static int __init gicv5_irs_init_bases(struct gicv5_irs_chip_data *irs_data,
> > + void __iomem *irs_base,
> > + struct fwnode_handle *handle)
> > +{
> > + u32 cr0, cr1;
> > + struct device_node *np = to_of_node(handle);
>
> Sigh
>
> > +static int __init gicv5_irs_of_init_affinity(struct device_node *node,
> > + struct gicv5_irs_chip_data *irs_data,
> > + u8 iaffid_bits)
>
> Moar random coding style choices.
>
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Detect IAFFID<->CPU mappings from the device tree and
> > + * record IRS<->CPU topology information.
> > + */
> > + int ret, i, ncpus, niaffids;
> > + u16 *iaffids;
> > + u16 iaffid_mask = GENMASK(iaffid_bits - 1, 0);
> > +
> > + ncpus = of_property_count_elems_of_size(node, "cpus", sizeof(u32));
> > + if (WARN_ON(ncpus < 0))
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Do you really need all these warnings?
I will review them.
> > +
> > + niaffids = of_property_count_elems_of_size(node, "arm,iaffids",
> > + sizeof(u16));
> > + if (WARN_ON(niaffids != ncpus))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + iaffids = kcalloc(niaffids, sizeof(*iaffids), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!iaffids)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + ret = of_property_read_u16_array(node, "arm,iaffids", iaffids, niaffids);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
>
> Leaks iaffids. Please use
>
> u16 *iaffids __free(kfree) = kcalloc(...);
>
> and the compiler will take care of that.
Yes, that's silly.
> > +static int __init gicv5_irs_init(struct device_node *node)
> > +{
> > + void __iomem *irs_base;
> > + struct gicv5_irs_chip_data *irs_data;
> > + int ret;
> > + u32 idr;
> > + u8 iaffid_bits;
> > +
> > + irs_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*irs_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> __free(kfree)
Will do.
> > + if (!irs_data)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> > + if (irs_data->spi_range)
> > + pr_info("%s detected SPI range [%u-%u]\n",
> > + of_node_full_name(node),
> > + irs_data->spi_min,
> > + irs_data->spi_min +
> > + irs_data->spi_range - 1);
>
> Please put those _five_ lines into brackets. It's not required by the
> compiler, but for reading. Brackets should be omitted only if the
> statement which follows ‘if’, ‘for’, ‘while’ etc. is truly a single
> line.
Ok.
> > +static int gicv5_iri_irq_get_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
> > + enum irqchip_irq_state which,
> > + bool *val, u8 hwirq_type)
> > +{
> > + u64 icsr, cdrcfg = d->hwirq | FIELD_PREP(GICV5_GIC_CDRCFG_TYPE_MASK,
> > + hwirq_type);
> > +
> > + preempt_disable();
>
> That's required because the calling contexts protection (raw spinlock
> held and interrupts disabled) is not enough, right?
Yes it is useless, I will remove it.
> > + gic_insn(cdrcfg, GICV5_OP_GIC_CDRCFG);
> > + isb();
> > + icsr = read_sysreg_s(SYS_ICC_ICSR_EL1);
> > + preempt_enable();
>
> > +static int gicv5_irq_spi_domain_translate(struct irq_domain *d,
> > + struct irq_fwspec *fwspec,
> > + irq_hw_number_t *hwirq,
> > + unsigned int *type)
> > +{
> > + if (is_of_node(fwspec->fwnode)) {
> > + if (fwspec->param_count < 3)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (fwspec->param[0] != GICV5_HWIRQ_TYPE_SPI)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + *hwirq = fwspec->param[1];
> > + *type = fwspec->param[2] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> The only difference between this and the ppi variant is the type check
> of param[0]. Common helper perhaps?
Definitely.
Thanks a lot,
Lorenzo
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list