On 2021-11-29 10:55, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Thomas,

On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 02:20:59AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Let the core code fiddle with the MSI descriptor retrieval.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
---
  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c |   19 +++----------------
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -3154,7 +3154,6 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struc
static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
  {
-       struct msi_desc *desc;
        int ret, nvec = ARM_SMMU_MAX_MSIS;
        struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
@@ -3182,21 +3181,9 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct a
                return;
        }
- for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
-               switch (desc->msi_index) {
-               case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
-                       smmu->evtq.q.irq = desc->irq;
-                       break;
-               case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
-                       smmu->gerr_irq = desc->irq;
-                       break;
-               case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
-                       smmu->priq.q.irq = desc->irq;
-                       break;
-               default:        /* Unknown */
-                       continue;
-               }
-       }
+       smmu->evtq.q.irq = msi_get_virq(dev, EVTQ_MSI_INDEX);
+       smmu->gerr_irq = msi_get_virq(dev, GERROR_MSI_INDEX);
+       smmu->priq.q.irq = msi_get_virq(dev, PRIQ_MSI_INDEX);

Prviously, if retrieval of the MSI failed then we'd fall back to wired
interrupts. Now, I think we'll clobber the interrupt with 0 instead. Can
we make the assignments to smmu->*irq here conditional on the MSI being
valid, please?

I was just looking at that too, but reached the conclusion that it's probably OK, since consumption of this value later is gated on ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI, so the fact that it changes from 0 to an error value in the absence of PRI should make no practical difference. If we don't have MSIs at all, we'd presumably still fail earlier either at the dev->msi_domain check or upon trying to allocate the vectors, so we'll still fall back to any previously-set wired values before getting here. The only remaining case is if we've *successfully* allocated the expected number of vectors yet are then somehow unable to retrieve one or more of them - presumably the system has to be massively borked for that to happen, at which point do we really want to bother trying to reason about anything?

Robin.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to