> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:02 AM > To: Alexander Graf > Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; Wood Scott-B07421; QEMU Developers; qemu-ppc > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ppc-e500: implement PCI INTx routing > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:28:17PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > On 19.12.2013, at 16:39, bharat.bhus...@freescale.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com] > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:55 AM > > >> To: Alexander Graf > > >> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; Wood Scott-B07421; QEMU Developers; > > >> qemu-ppc; Bhushan > > >> Bharat-R65777 > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ppc-e500: implement PCI INTx routing > > >> > > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:53:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 28.11.2013, at 07:35, Bharat Bhushan <r65...@freescale.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> This patch adds pci pin to irq_num routing callback Without this > > >>>> patch we gets below warning > > >>>> > > >>>> " > > >>>> PCI: Bug - unimplemented PCI INTx routing (e500-pcihost) > > >>>> qemu-system-ppc64: PCI: Bug - unimplemented PCI INTx routing > > >>>> (e500-pcihost) " > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <bharat.bhus...@freescale.com> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> hw/pci-host/ppce500.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- > > >>>> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c b/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c index > > >>>> 49bfcc6..3c4cf9e 100644 > > >>>> --- a/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c > > >>>> +++ b/hw/pci-host/ppce500.c > > >>>> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ struct PPCE500PCIState { > > >>>> struct pci_inbound pib[PPCE500_PCI_NR_PIBS]; > > >>>> uint32_t gasket_time; > > >>>> qemu_irq irq[PCI_NUM_PINS]; > > >>>> + uint32_t irq_num[PCI_NUM_PINS]; > > >>>> uint32_t first_slot; > > >>>> /* mmio maps */ > > >>>> MemoryRegion container; > > >>>> @@ -267,13 +268,26 @@ static int mpc85xx_pci_map_irq(PCIDevice > > >>>> *pci_dev, int pin) > > >>>> > > >>>> static void mpc85xx_pci_set_irq(void *opaque, int pin, int level) { > > >>>> - qemu_irq *pic = opaque; > > >>>> + PPCE500PCIState *s = opaque; > > >>>> + qemu_irq *pic = s->irq;; > > >>> > > >>> Double semicolon? > > > > > > Ok, will correct. > > > > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> pci_debug("%s: PCI irq %d, level:%d\n", __func__, pin , > > >>>> level); > > >>>> > > >>>> qemu_set_irq(pic[pin], level); } > > >>>> > > >>>> +static PCIINTxRoute e500_route_intx_pin_to_irq(void *opaque, int > > >>>> +pin) { > > >>>> + PCIINTxRoute route; > > >>>> + PPCE500PCIState *s = opaque; > > >>>> + > > >>>> + route.mode = PCI_INTX_ENABLED; > > >>>> + route.irq = s->irq_num[pin]; > > >>>> + > > >>>> + pci_debug("%s: PCI irq-pin = %d, irq_num= %d\n", __func__, > > >>>> + pin, > > >> route.irq); > > >>>> + return route; > > >>>> +} > > >>>> + > > >>>> static const VMStateDescription vmstate_pci_outbound = { > > >>>> .name = "pci_outbound", > > >>>> .version_id = 0, > > >>>> @@ -350,12 +364,13 @@ static int e500_pcihost_initfn(SysBusDevice > > >>>> *dev) > > >>>> > > >>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(s->irq); i++) { > > >>>> sysbus_init_irq(dev, &s->irq[i]); > > >>>> + s->irq_num[i] = i + 1; > > >>> > > >>> Doesn't this duplicate the logic from ppce500_pci_map_irq_slot()? > > >>> I don't > > >> understand the purpose of this whole exercise to be honest. > > >>> > > >>> Michael, could you please shed some light on this? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Alex > > >> > > >> This is printed by pci_device_route_intx_to_irq - it's used by > > >> device assignment and vfio to figure out which irq does a given pci > > >> device > drive. > > > > > > Yes, exactly same reason. > > > > Is there any way we could get rid of the information duplication? The fact > that INTA/B/C/D are mapped to 1,2,3,4 is really a configuration parameter that > should only live at a single spot. > > > > > > Alex > > Yes. In fact I had the idea to only have something like > pci_device_route_intx_to_irq and call it once for all interrupts and cache > that, > then use this to send interrupts directly to apic. > Redo this each time routing changes. > I had a patch like this (and I think Jan had one too), but Anthony said he'll > rewrite all interrupt routing using QOM so I dropped it. I'll try to resurrect > it.
So do we want to have this patch almost in this shape and hope Anthony's changes will handle this well or wait for Anthony patches first ? Thanks -Bharat >
