[PATCH V4 1/3] irqchip/sifive-plic: Add thead,c900-plic support

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2021-10-18 06:17, Samuel Holland wrote:
> On 10/15/21 10:21 PM, guoren at kernel.org wrote:
>> From: Guo Ren <guoren at linux.alibaba.com>
>> 
>> 1) The irq_mask/unmask() is used by handle_fasteoi_irq() is mostly

Drop this useless numbering.

>> for ONESHOT irqs and there is no limitation in the RISC-V PLIC driver
>> due to use of irq_mask/unmask() callbacks. In fact, a lot of irqchip
>> drivers using handle_fasteoi_irq() also implement irq_mask/unmask().

This paragraph doesn't provide any useful information in the context
of this patch. That's at best cover-letter material.

>> 2) The C9xx PLIC does not comply with the interrupt claim/completion
>> process defined by the RISC-V PLIC specification because C9xx PLIC
>> will mask an IRQ when it is claimed by PLIC driver (i.e. readl(claim)
>> and the IRQ will be unmasked upon completion by PLIC driver (i.e.
>> writel(claim). This behaviour breaks the handling of IRQS_ONESHOT by
>> the generic handle_fasteoi_irq() used in the PLIC driver.
>> 
>> 3) This patch adds an errata fix for IRQS_ONESHOT handling on

s/fix/workaround/

>> C9xx PLIC by using irq_enable/disable() callbacks instead of
>> irq_mask/unmask().

 From Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:

<quote>
Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
its behaviour.
</quote>

>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren at linux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Anup Patel <anup at brainfault.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
>> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt.com>
>> Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra at wdc.com>
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes since V4:
>>  - Update comment by Anup
>> 
>> Changes since V3:
>>  - Rename "c9xx" to "c900"
>>  - Add sifive_plic_chip and thead_plic_chip for difference
>> 
>> Changes since V2:
>>  - Add a separate compatible string "thead,c9xx-plic"
>>  - set irq_mask/unmask of "plic_chip" to NULL and point
>>    irq_enable/disable of "plic_chip" to plic_irq_mask/unmask
>>  - Add a detailed comment block in plic_init() about the
>>    differences in Claim/Completion process of RISC-V PLIC and C9xx
>>    PLIC.
>> ---
>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 34 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c 
>> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>> index cf74cfa82045..960b29d02070 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>> @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static void plic_irq_eoi(struct irq_data *d)
>>  	writel(d->hwirq, handler->hart_base + CONTEXT_CLAIM);
>>  }
>> 
>> -static struct irq_chip plic_chip = {
>> +static struct irq_chip sifive_plic_chip = {
>>  	.name		= "SiFive PLIC",
>>  	.irq_mask	= plic_irq_mask,
>>  	.irq_unmask	= plic_irq_unmask,
>> @@ -176,12 +176,32 @@ static struct irq_chip plic_chip = {
>>  #endif
>>  };
>> 
>> +/*
>> + * The C9xx PLIC does not comply with the interrupt claim/completion
>> + * process defined by the RISC-V PLIC specification because C9xx PLIC
>> + * will mask an IRQ when it is claimed by PLIC driver (i.e. 
>> readl(claim)
>> + * and the IRQ will be unmasked upon completion by PLIC driver (i.e.
>> + * writel(claim). This behaviour breaks the handling of IRQS_ONESHOT 
>> by
>> + * the generic handle_fasteoi_irq() used in the PLIC driver.
>> + */
>> +static struct irq_chip thead_plic_chip = {
>> +	.name		= "T-Head PLIC",
>> +	.irq_disable	= plic_irq_mask,
>> +	.irq_enable	= plic_irq_unmask,
>> +	.irq_eoi	= plic_irq_eoi,
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> +	.irq_set_affinity = plic_set_affinity,
>> +#endif
> I tested this, and it doesn't work. Without IRQCHIP_EOI_THREADED,
> .irq_eoi is called at the end of the hard IRQ handler. This unmasks the
> IRQ before the irqthread has a chance to run, so it causes an interrupt
> storm for any threaded level IRQ (I saw this happen for sun8i_thermal).
> 
> With IRQCHIP_EOI_THREADED, .irq_eoi is delayed until after the 
> irqthread
> runs. This is good. Except that the call to unmask_threaded_irq() is
> inside a check for IRQD_IRQ_MASKED. And IRQD_IRQ_MASKED will never be
> set because .irq_mask is NULL. So the end result is that the IRQ is
> never EOI'd and is masked permanently.
> 
> If you set .flags = IRQCHIP_EOI_THREADED, and additionally set 
> .irq_mask
> and .irq_unmask to a dummy function that does nothing, the IRQ core 
> will
> properly set/unset IRQD_IRQ_MASKED, and the IRQs will flow as expected.
> But adding dummy functions seems not so ideal, so I am not sure if this
> is the best solution.

This series is totally broken indeed, because it assumes that
enable/disable are a substitute to mask/unmask. Nothing could be further
from the truth. mask/unmask must be implemented, and enable/disable
supplement them if the HW requires something different at startup time.

If you have an 'automask' behaviour and yet the HW doesn't record this
in a separate bit, then you need to track this by yourself in the
irq_eoi() callback instead. I guess that you would skip the write to
the CLAIM register in this case, though I have no idea whether this 
breaks
the HW interrupt state or not.

There is an example of this in the Apple AIC driver.

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