On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 11:25:21AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > In subject, s/MSI[X]// and s/support for/for/ > > The "MSI[X]" notation really isn't used anywhere else, and we already > include "PCI/MSI" in the prefix, so I don't think we need it again. > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 07:23:23PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > As The RISC-V PLIC can not apply affinity setting without calling > > irq_enable(), it will make the interrupt unavaible when using as > > an underlying irq chip for MSI controller. > > s/As The/As the/ > s/unavaible/unavailable/ > s/irq chip/IRQ chip/ > These are good for me. I will take it. > > Introduce the irq_startup/irq_shutdown for PCI domain template with > > new MSI domain flag. This allow the PLIC can be properly configurated > > when calling irq_startup(). > > Maybe something like: > > Implement .irq_startup() and .irq_shutdown() for the PCI MSI and > MSI-X templates. For chips that specify MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSI_STARTUP_PARENT, > these startup and shutdown the parent as well, which allows ... > > s/This allow/This allows/ > s/can be properly configurated/to be configured/ > Thanks, I will update my commit log. > Evidently PLIC depends on this "parent" connection, but that isn't > explained at all in the commit log. > When call irq_startup, the PLIC is called irq_enable() instead of irq_unmask(), the the irq on PLIC can be enabled. I will add this to the commit log. > > Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/pci/msi/irqdomain.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/msi.h | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi/irqdomain.c b/drivers/pci/msi/irqdomain.c > > index 0938ef7ebabf..f0d18cadbe20 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/msi/irqdomain.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/msi/irqdomain.c > > @@ -148,6 +148,23 @@ static void pci_device_domain_set_desc(msi_alloc_info_t *arg, struct msi_desc *d > > arg->hwirq = desc->msi_index; > > } > > > > +static __always_inline void cond_shutdown_parent(struct irq_data *data) > > Is there a functional reason why we need __always_inline? > I am not sure for this. As I found other cond_[mask/unmask]_parent() also have this attribute, I added this as well. > If not, it seems like this annotation is just clutter, and the compiler > will probably inline it all by itself. > I will see if someone know the reason. If there is no other objection, I will remove this in the next version Regards, Inochi
