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. 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?
thanks,
- Joel
