Hi Julien,
On 29.07.25 16:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 24/07/2025 15:57, Leonid Komarianskyi wrote:
>> The current checks don't allow us to assign or release interrupts
>> with INTID greater than 1024. This patch adds an additional condition
>> to check whether the IRQ number is in the eSPI range and allows it to
>> be assigned to Xen and domains if it is.
> > > Signed-off-by: Leonid Komarianskyi <leonid_komarians...@epam.com>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
>> index 3f68257fde..8c47eeb7c3 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
>> @@ -444,8 +444,8 @@ err:
>> bool is_assignable_irq(unsigned int irq)
>> {
>> - /* For now, we can only route SPIs to the guest */
>> - return (irq >= NR_LOCAL_IRQS) && (irq < gic_number_lines());
>> + /* For now, we can only route SPIs and eSPIs to the guest */
>> + return (((irq >= NR_LOCAL_IRQS) && (irq < gic_number_lines())) ||
>> is_espi(irq));
>> }
>
> is_assignable_irq() is called by route_irq_to_guest() which first check
> 'virq >= vgic_num_irqs()'. AFAICT, if we apply only up to this patch,
> 'virq' would still require to < 1024. So ...
That is my mistake when splitting the changes into separate patches. I
will at least reorder the patches to make the changes more logical, or,
based on your comments for the 6th patch in the series, I will try to
refactor it with a helper function instead.
>> be
>> /*
>> @@ -589,8 +589,8 @@ int release_guest_irq(struct domain *d, unsigned
>> int virq)
>> unsigned long flags;
>> int ret;
>> - /* Only SPIs are supported */
>> - if ( virq < NR_LOCAL_IRQS || virq >= vgic_num_irqs(d) )
>> + /* Only SPIs and eSPIs are supported */
>> + if ( (virq < NR_LOCAL_IRQS || virq >= vgic_num_irqs(d)) && !
>> is_espi(virq) )
>
> ... I don't quite understand why this (yet?) need a change. Can you
> clarify? ...
This is necessary to allow releasing eSPI IRQs when destroying the
domain. And yes, this is the same mistake on my part - the patches are
in the wrong order, and I will refactor them to fix that and make
changes more logical and straightforward.
Thank you for your comments.
Cheers,
Leonid
