|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/6] xen/arm: Allow platforms to hook IRQ routing.
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Kyle Temkin wrote:
> From: "Kyle J. Temkin" <temkink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Some common platforms (e.g. Tegra) have non-traditional IRQ controllers
> that must be programmed in addition to their primary GICs-- and which
> can come in unusual topologies. Device trees for targets that feature
> these controllers often deviate from the conventions that Xen expects.
>
> This commit provides a foundation for support of these platforms, by:
> - Allowing the platform to decide which IRQs can be routed by Xen,
> rather than assuming that only GIC-connected IRQs can be routed.
> - Allowing the platform to extend/replace existing IRQ routing logic,
> rather than asssuming that the GIC will always be programmed to route
> IRQs.
> - Allows the platform to override IRQ translation, rather than assuming
> GIC translation will always be followed. This is useful in cases where
> device tree IRQ numbers don't correspond to GIC IRQ numbers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Temkin <temkink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 5 +++--
> xen/arch/arm/platform.c | 39
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> xen/arch/arm/time.c | 2 +-
> xen/drivers/char/cadence-uart.c | 3 ++-
> xen/drivers/char/exynos4210-uart.c | 3 ++-
> xen/drivers/char/ns16550.c | 3 ++-
> xen/drivers/char/omap-uart.c | 3 ++-
> xen/drivers/char/pl011.c | 3 ++-
> xen/drivers/char/scif-uart.c | 3 ++-
> xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu.c | 4 ++--
> xen/include/asm-arm/platform.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 12 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> index 52c9a01..402c766 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
> @@ -1094,16 +1094,20 @@ static int handle_device(struct domain *d, struct
> dt_device_node *dev)
>
> /*
> * Don't map IRQ that have no physical meaning
> - * ie: IRQ whose controller is not the GIC
> + * ie: IRQ that does not wind up being controlled by the GIC
> + * (Note that we can't just check to see if an IRQ is owned by the
> GIC,
> + * as some platforms have a controller between the device irq and
> the GIC,
> + * such as the Tegra legacy interrupt controller.)
> */
> - if ( rirq.controller != dt_interrupt_controller )
> + if ( !platform_irq_is_routable(&rirq) )
> {
> - dt_dprintk("irq %u not connected to primary controller.
> Connected to %s\n",
> - i, dt_node_full_name(rirq.controller));
> + dt_dprintk("irq %u not (directly or indirectly) connected to
> primary"
> + "controller. Connected to %s\n", i,
> + dt_node_full_name(rirq.controller));
> continue;
> }
>
> - res = platform_get_irq(dev, i);
> + res = platform_irq_for_device(dev, i);
> if ( res < 0 )
> {
> printk(XENLOG_ERR "Unable to get irq %u for %s\n",
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> index 06d4843..dc42817 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>
> #include <asm/gic.h>
> #include <asm/vgic.h>
> +#include <asm/platform.h>
>
> static unsigned int local_irqs_type[NR_LOCAL_IRQS];
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(local_irqs_type_lock);
> @@ -370,7 +371,7 @@ int setup_irq(unsigned int irq, unsigned int irqflags,
> struct irqaction *new)
> /* First time the IRQ is setup */
> if ( disabled )
> {
> - gic_route_irq_to_xen(desc, GIC_PRI_IRQ);
> + platform_route_irq_to_xen(desc, GIC_PRI_IRQ);
> /* It's fine to use smp_processor_id() because:
> * For PPI: irq_desc is banked
> * For SPI: we don't care for now which CPU will receive the
> @@ -504,7 +505,7 @@ int route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned int
> virq,
> if ( retval )
> goto out;
>
> - retval = gic_route_irq_to_guest(d, virq, desc, GIC_PRI_IRQ);
> + retval = platform_route_irq_to_guest(d, virq, desc, GIC_PRI_IRQ);
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/platform.c b/xen/arch/arm/platform.c
> index b0bfaa9..74abdc6 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/platform.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/platform.c
> @@ -137,6 +137,45 @@ bool_t platform_device_is_blacklisted(const struct
> dt_device_node *node)
> return (dt_match_node(blacklist, node) != NULL);
> }
>
> +int platform_route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned int virq,
> + struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int priority)
> +{
> + if ( platform && platform->route_irq_to_guest )
> + return platform->route_irq_to_guest(d, virq, desc, priority);
> + else
> + return gic_route_irq_to_guest(d, virq, desc, priority);
> +}
> +
> +void platform_route_irq_to_xen(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int priority)
> +{
> + if ( platform && platform->route_irq_to_xen )
> + platform->route_irq_to_xen(desc, priority);
> + else
> + gic_route_irq_to_xen(desc, priority);
> +}
> +
> +bool_t platform_irq_is_routable(struct dt_raw_irq * rirq)
> +{
> + /*
> + * If we have a platform-specific method to determine if an IRQ is
> routable,
> + * check that; otherwise fall back to checking to see if an IRQ belongs
> to
> + * the GIC.
> + */
> + if ( platform && platform->irq_is_routable )
> + return platform->irq_is_routable(rirq);
> + else
> + return (rirq->controller == dt_interrupt_controller);
> +}
> +
> +int platform_irq_for_device(const struct dt_device_node *dev, int index)
> +{
> + if ( platform && platform->irq_for_device )
> + return platform->irq_for_device(dev, index);
> + else
> + return platform_get_irq(dev, index);
> +}
If it's not too much trouble I would move these functions to platform.h
as static inlines.
In any case the patch is OK:
Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |