On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 06:20:54PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Niklas,
Hello Kishon
>
> On Wednesday 20 December 2017 04:59 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > Add a generic function for raising MSI irqs that can be used by all
> > DWC based controllers.
> >
> > Note that certain controllers, like DRA7xx, have a special convenience
> > register for raising MSI irqs that doesn't require you to explicitly map
> > the MSI address. Therefore, it is likely that certain drivers will
> > not use this generic function, even if they can.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cas...@axis.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 35
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 9 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
> > b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
> > index 700ed2f4becf..c5aa1cac5041 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c
> > @@ -282,6 +282,41 @@ static const struct pci_epc_ops epc_ops = {
> > .stop = dw_pcie_ep_stop,
> > };
> >
> > +int dw_pcie_ep_raise_msi_irq(struct dw_pcie_ep *ep,
> > + u8 interrupt_num)
> > +{
> > + struct dw_pcie *pci = to_dw_pcie_from_ep(ep);
> > + struct pci_epc *epc = ep->epc;
> > + u16 msg_ctrl, msg_data;
> > + u32 msg_addr_lower, msg_addr_upper;
> > + u64 msg_addr;
> > + bool has_upper;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* Raise MSI per the PCI Local Bus Specification Revision 3.0, 6.8.1. */
> > + msg_ctrl = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_CONTROL);
> > + has_upper = !!(msg_ctrl & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT);
> > + msg_addr_lower = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_ADDR_L32);
> > + if (has_upper) {
> > + msg_addr_upper = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_ADDR_U32);
> > + msg_data = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_DATA_64);
> > + } else {
> > + msg_addr_upper = 0;
> > + msg_data = dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, MSI_MESSAGE_DATA_32);
> > + }
> > + msg_addr = ((u64) msg_addr_upper) << 32 | msg_addr_lower;
> > + ret = dw_pcie_ep_map_addr(epc, ep->msi_mem_phys, msg_addr,
> > + epc->mem->page_size);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + writel(msg_data | (interrupt_num - 1), ep->msi_mem);
>
> Shouldn't this be msg_data + (interrupt_num - 1)?
I'm not quite sure about this, but if there is a pending irq,
not yet processed by the RC, the msg_data we read out in this
function should have a bit set, matching the pending irq.
If that irq is the same as the irq we are trying to raise,
doing an addition will produce a bogus vector number,
but a bitwise or should work.
For that reason, I think that doing bitwise or seems safer.
However, other than this case, I don't see why it should
matter if we do an addition or a bitwise or.
Are you having some problem with the code?
It seems to be working fine on ARTPEC-6:
# ./pcitest -m 1
MSI1: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 2
MSI2: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 3
MSI3: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 4
MSI4: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 5
MSI5: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 6
MSI6: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 7
MSI7: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 8
MSI8: OKAY
# ./pcitest -m 9
MSI9: OKAY
# cat /proc/interrupts | grep -i msi
82: 9 0 GIC-0 180 Level artpec6-pcie-msi
188: 1 0 PCI-MSI 16 Edge pci-endpoint-test
189: 1 0 PCI-MSI 17 Edge pci-endpoint-test
190: 1 0 PCI-MSI 18 Edge pci-endpoint-test
191: 1 0 PCI-MSI 19 Edge pci-endpoint-test
192: 1 0 PCI-MSI 20 Edge pci-endpoint-test
193: 1 0 PCI-MSI 21 Edge pci-endpoint-test
194: 1 0 PCI-MSI 22 Edge pci-endpoint-test
195: 1 0 PCI-MSI 23 Edge pci-endpoint-test
196: 1 0 PCI-MSI 24 Edge pci-endpoint-test
197: 0 0 PCI-MSI 25 Edge pci-endpoint-test
198: 0 0 PCI-MSI 26 Edge pci-endpoint-test
199: 0 0 PCI-MSI 27 Edge pci-endpoint-test
200: 0 0 PCI-MSI 28 Edge pci-endpoint-test
201: 0 0 PCI-MSI 29 Edge pci-endpoint-test
202: 0 0 PCI-MSI 30 Edge pci-endpoint-test
203: 0 0 PCI-MSI 31 Edge pci-endpoint-test
>From EP:
irq: 1 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x10
irq: 2 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x11
irq: 3 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x12
irq: 4 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x13
irq: 5 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x14
irq: 6 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x15
irq: 7 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x16
irq: 8 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x17
irq: 9 read msg_data: 0x10 writing: 0x18
This also looks correct, since I enabled 16 irqs,
I'm only allowed to modify bits 0-3.
Regards,
Niklas
