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

[Darius Rad]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:19:06PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 9:34 PM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:27:02 +0100,
> > Guo Ren <guoren at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 6:18 PM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:33:49 +0100,
> > > > Guo Ren <guoren at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > If you have an 'automask' behavior 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.
> > > > > The problem is when enable bit is 0 for that irq_number,
> > > > > "writel(d->hwirq, handler->hart_base + CONTEXT_CLAIM)" wouldn't affect
> > > > > the hw state machine. Then this irq would enter in ack state and no
> > > > > continues irqs could come in.
> > > >
> > > > Really? This means that you cannot mask an interrupt while it is being
> > > > handled? How great...
> > > If the completion ID does not match an interrupt source that is
> > > currently enabled for the target, the completion is silently ignored.
> > > So, C9xx completion depends on enable-bit.
> >
> > Is that what the PLIC spec says? Or what your implementation does? I
> > can understand that one implementation would be broken, but if the
> > PLIC architecture itself is broken, that's far more concerning.
> 
> Here is the description of Interrupt Completion in PLIC spec [1]:
> 
> The PLIC signals it has completed executing an interrupt handler by
> writing the interrupt ID it received from the claim to the claim/complete
> register. The PLIC does not check whether the completion ID is the same
> as the last claim ID for that target. If the completion ID does not match
> an interrupt source that is currently enabled for the target, the
>                                       ^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> completion is silently ignored.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-plic-spec/blob/master/riscv-plic.adoc
> 
> Did we misunderstand the PLIC spec?
> 

That clause sounds to me like it is due to the SiFive implementation, which
the RISC-V PLIC specification is based on.  Since the PLIC spec is still a
draft I would expect it to change before release.