On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 11:48:19AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Wed Sep 10, 2025 at 9:02 PM CEST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 02:09:55PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > > + /// Allocate IRQ vectors for this PCI device.
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// Allocates between `min_vecs` and `max_vecs` interrupt vectors
> >> > > for the device.
> >> > > + /// The allocation will use MSI-X, MSI, or legacy interrupts
> >> > > based on the `irq_types`
> >> > > + /// parameter and hardware capabilities. When multiple types are
> >> > > specified, the kernel
> >> > > + /// will try them in order of preference: MSI-X first, then MSI,
> >> > > then legacy interrupts.
> >> > > + /// This is called during driver probe.
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// # Arguments
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// * `min_vecs` - Minimum number of vectors required
> >> > > + /// * `max_vecs` - Maximum number of vectors to allocate
> >> > > + /// * `irq_types` - Types of interrupts that can be used
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// # Returns
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// Returns the number of vectors successfully allocated, or an
> >> > > error if the allocation
> >> > > + /// fails or cannot meet the minimum requirement.
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// # Examples
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// ```
> >> > > + /// // Allocate using any available interrupt type in the order
> >> > > mentioned above.
> >> > > + /// let nvecs = dev.alloc_irq_vectors(1, 32, IrqTypes::all())?;
> >> > > + ///
> >> > > + /// // Allocate MSI or MSI-X only (no legacy interrupts)
> >> > > + /// let msi_only = IrqTypes::default()
> >> > > + /// .with(IrqType::Msi)
> >> > > + /// .with(IrqType::MsiX);
> >> > > + /// let nvecs = dev.alloc_irq_vectors(4, 16, msi_only)?;
> >> > > + /// ```
> >> > > + pub fn alloc_irq_vectors(
> >> > > + &self,
> >> > > + min_vecs: u32,
> >> > > + max_vecs: u32,
> >> > > + irq_types: IrqTypes,
> >> > > + ) -> Result<u32> {
> >> > > + // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is guaranteed to be a pointer to a
> >> > > valid `struct pci_dev`.
> >> > > + // `pci_alloc_irq_vectors` internally validates all
> >> > > parameters and returns error codes.
> >> > > + let ret = unsafe {
> >> > > + bindings::pci_alloc_irq_vectors(self.as_raw(), min_vecs,
> >> > > max_vecs, irq_types.raw())
> >> > > + };
> >> > > +
> >> > > + to_result(ret)?;
> >> > > + Ok(ret as u32)
> >> > > + }
> >> >
> >> > This is only valid to be called from the Core context, as it modifies
> >> > internal
> >> > fields of the inner struct device.
> >>
> >> It is called from core context, the diff format confuses.
> >> >
> >> > Also, it would be nice if it would return a new type that can serve as
> >> > argument
> >> > for irq_vector(), such that we don't have to rely on random integers.
> >>
> >> Makes sense, I will do that.
> >>
> > By the way, the "ret" value returned by pci_alloc_irq_vectors() is the
> > number
> > of vectors, not the vector index.
>
> Sure, but the vector index passed to pci_irq_vector() must be in the range
> defined by the return value of pci_alloc_irq_vectors().
>
> I thought of e.g. Range<pci::IrqVector> as return value. This way you can
> easily
> iterate it and prove that it's an allocated vector index.
Agreed, I will do it like this.
> > So basically there are 3 numbers that mean
> > different things:
> > 1. Number of vectors (as returned by alloc_irq_vectors).
> > 2. Index of a vector (passed to pci_irq_vector).
> > 3. The Linux IRQ number (passed to request_irq).
> >
> > And your point is well taken, in fact even in current code there is
> > ambiguity: irq_vector() accepts a vector index, where as request_irq()
> > accepts a Linux IRQ number, which are different numbers. I can try to clean
> > that up as well but let me know if you had any other thoughts. In fact, I
> > think Device<device::Bound>::request_irq() pci should just accept
> > IrqRequest?
>
> Currently, pci::Device::request_irq() takes an IRQ vector index and calls
> irq_vector() internally to convert the vector index into an IRQ number.
>
> I'd keep this semantics, but introduce a new type IrqVector rather than using
> the raw integer. So, drivers would call
>
> // `irq_vecs` is of type `Range<pci::IrqVector>`.
> let irq_vecs = dev.alloc_irq_vectors(1, 1, pci::IrqTypes::ANY)?;
> let irq = KBox::pin_init(
> dev.request_irq(irq_vecs.start, ...)?,
> )?;
This sounds good to me. Thanks,
- Joel
