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

[Guo Ren]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:08 PM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 15:33:49 +0100,
> Anup Patel <anup at brainfault.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 7:04 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.
> >
> > Yes, we are dealing with a broken/non-compliant PLIC
> > implementation.
> >
> > The RISC-V PLIC spec defines a very different behaviour for the
> > interrupt claim (i.e. readl(claim)) and interrupt completion (i.e.
> > writel(claim)). The T-HEAD PLIC implementation does things
> > different from what the RISC-V PLIC spec says because it will
> > mask an interrupt upon interrupt claim whereas PLIC spec says
> > it should only clear the interrupt pending bit (not mask the interrupt).
> >
> > Quoting interrupt claim process (chapter 9) from PLIC spec:
> > "The PLIC can perform an interrupt claim by reading the claim/complete
> > register, which returns the ID of the highest priority pending interrupt or
> > zero if there is no pending interrupt. A successful claim will also atomically
> > clear the corresponding pending bit on the interrupt source."
> >
> > Refer, https://github.com/riscv/riscv-plic-spec/blob/master/riscv-plic.adoc
>
> That's not the point I'm making. According to Guo, the PLIC (any
> implementation of it) will ignore a write to claim on a masked
> interrupt.
>
> If that's indeed correct, then a sequence such as:
>
> (1) irq = read(claim)
> (2) mask from the interrupt handler with the right flags so that it
> isn't done lazily
> (3) write(irq, claim)

How about letting the IRQ chip change?

diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c
index a98bcfc4be7b..ed6ace1058ac 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/chip.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c
@@ -444,10 +444,10 @@ void unmask_threaded_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
 {
        struct irq_chip *chip = desc->irq_data.chip;

+       unmask_irq(desc);
+
        if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_EOI_THREADED)
                chip->irq_eoi(&desc->irq_data);
-
-       unmask_irq(desc);
 }

 /*
@@ -673,8 +673,8 @@ static void cond_unmask_eoi_irq(struct irq_desc
*desc, struct irq_chip *chip)
         */
        if (!irqd_irq_disabled(&desc->irq_data) &&
            irqd_irq_masked(&desc->irq_data) && !desc->threads_oneshot) {
-               chip->irq_eoi(&desc->irq_data);
                unmask_irq(desc);
+               chip->irq_eoi(&desc->irq_data);
        } else if (!(chip->flags & IRQCHIP_EOI_THREADED)) {
                chip->irq_eoi(&desc->irq_data);
        }

>
> will result in an interrupt blocked in ack state (and probably no more
> interrupt for this CPU at this priority). That would be an interesting
> bug in the current code, but also a pretty bad architectural choice.
>
>         M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.



-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/