mbox series

[v2,0/2] irqchip/gic-v3: Enable non-coherent GIC designs probing

Message ID 20230906094139.16032-1-lpieralisi@kernel.org
Headers show
Series irqchip/gic-v3: Enable non-coherent GIC designs probing | expand

Message

Lorenzo Pieralisi Sept. 6, 2023, 9:41 a.m. UTC
This series is v2 of a previous version[1].

v1 -> v2:
	- Updated DT bindings as per feedback
	- Updated patch[2] to use GIC quirks infrastructure

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230905104721.52199-1-lpieralisi@kernel.org

Original cover letter
---
The GICv3 architecture specifications provide a means for the
system programmer to set the shareability and cacheability
attributes the GIC components (redistributors and ITSes) use
to drive memory transactions.

Albeit the architecture give control over shareability/cacheability
memory transactions attributes (and barriers), it is allowed to
connect the GIC interconnect ports to non-coherent memory ports
on the interconnect, basically tying off shareability/cacheability
"wires" and de-facto making the redistributors and ITSes non-coherent
memory observers.

This series aims at starting a discussion over a possible solution
to this problem, by adding to the GIC device tree bindings the
standard dma-noncoherent property. The GIC driver uses the property
to force the redistributors and ITSes shareability attributes to
non-shareable, which consequently forces the driver to use CMOs
on GIC memory tables.

On ARM DT DMA is default non-coherent, so the GIC driver can't rely
on the generic DT dma-coherent/non-coherent property management layer
(of_dma_is_coherent()) which would default all GIC designs in the field
as non-coherent; it has to rely on ad-hoc dma-noncoherent property handling.

When a consistent approach is agreed upon for DT an equivalent binding will
be put forward for ACPI based systems.

Lorenzo Pieralisi (2):
  dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: arm,gic-v3: Add dma-noncoherent
    property
  irqchip/gic-v3: Enable non-coherent redistributors/ITSes probing

 .../interrupt-controller/arm,gic-v3.yaml      | 12 +++++++++++
 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.h              |  4 ++++
 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c              | 21 +++++++++++++++----
 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c                  | 13 ++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Marc Zyngier Sept. 6, 2023, 9:52 a.m. UTC | #1
On 2023-09-06 10:41, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> This series is v2 of a previous version[1].
> 
> v1 -> v2:
> 	- Updated DT bindings as per feedback
> 	- Updated patch[2] to use GIC quirks infrastructure
> 
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230905104721.52199-1-lpieralisi@kernel.org
> 
> Original cover letter
> ---
> The GICv3 architecture specifications provide a means for the
> system programmer to set the shareability and cacheability
> attributes the GIC components (redistributors and ITSes) use
> to drive memory transactions.
> 
> Albeit the architecture give control over shareability/cacheability
> memory transactions attributes (and barriers), it is allowed to
> connect the GIC interconnect ports to non-coherent memory ports
> on the interconnect, basically tying off shareability/cacheability
> "wires" and de-facto making the redistributors and ITSes non-coherent
> memory observers.
> 
> This series aims at starting a discussion over a possible solution
> to this problem, by adding to the GIC device tree bindings the
> standard dma-noncoherent property. The GIC driver uses the property
> to force the redistributors and ITSes shareability attributes to
> non-shareable, which consequently forces the driver to use CMOs
> on GIC memory tables.
> 
> On ARM DT DMA is default non-coherent, so the GIC driver can't rely
> on the generic DT dma-coherent/non-coherent property management layer
> (of_dma_is_coherent()) which would default all GIC designs in the field
> as non-coherent; it has to rely on ad-hoc dma-noncoherent property 
> handling.
> 
> When a consistent approach is agreed upon for DT an equivalent binding 
> will
> be put forward for ACPI based systems.

What is the plan for this last point? I'd like to see at least
a proposal before taking this series in.

         M.
Lorenzo Pieralisi Sept. 6, 2023, 11:23 a.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 10:52:01AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2023-09-06 10:41, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > This series is v2 of a previous version[1].
> > 
> > v1 -> v2:
> > 	- Updated DT bindings as per feedback
> > 	- Updated patch[2] to use GIC quirks infrastructure
> > 
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230905104721.52199-1-lpieralisi@kernel.org
> > 
> > Original cover letter
> > ---
> > The GICv3 architecture specifications provide a means for the
> > system programmer to set the shareability and cacheability
> > attributes the GIC components (redistributors and ITSes) use
> > to drive memory transactions.
> > 
> > Albeit the architecture give control over shareability/cacheability
> > memory transactions attributes (and barriers), it is allowed to
> > connect the GIC interconnect ports to non-coherent memory ports
> > on the interconnect, basically tying off shareability/cacheability
> > "wires" and de-facto making the redistributors and ITSes non-coherent
> > memory observers.
> > 
> > This series aims at starting a discussion over a possible solution
> > to this problem, by adding to the GIC device tree bindings the
> > standard dma-noncoherent property. The GIC driver uses the property
> > to force the redistributors and ITSes shareability attributes to
> > non-shareable, which consequently forces the driver to use CMOs
> > on GIC memory tables.
> > 
> > On ARM DT DMA is default non-coherent, so the GIC driver can't rely
> > on the generic DT dma-coherent/non-coherent property management layer
> > (of_dma_is_coherent()) which would default all GIC designs in the field
> > as non-coherent; it has to rely on ad-hoc dma-noncoherent property
> > handling.
> > 
> > When a consistent approach is agreed upon for DT an equivalent binding
> > will
> > be put forward for ACPI based systems.
> 
> What is the plan for this last point? I'd like to see at least
> a proposal before taking this series in.

Absolutely, I am starting a thread on related MADT changes, should not take
too long.

Lorenzo
Lorenzo Pieralisi Sept. 21, 2023, 10:11 a.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 01:23:30PM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 10:52:01AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2023-09-06 10:41, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > This series is v2 of a previous version[1].
> > > 
> > > v1 -> v2:
> > > 	- Updated DT bindings as per feedback
> > > 	- Updated patch[2] to use GIC quirks infrastructure
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230905104721.52199-1-lpieralisi@kernel.org
> > > 
> > > Original cover letter
> > > ---
> > > The GICv3 architecture specifications provide a means for the
> > > system programmer to set the shareability and cacheability
> > > attributes the GIC components (redistributors and ITSes) use
> > > to drive memory transactions.
> > > 
> > > Albeit the architecture give control over shareability/cacheability
> > > memory transactions attributes (and barriers), it is allowed to
> > > connect the GIC interconnect ports to non-coherent memory ports
> > > on the interconnect, basically tying off shareability/cacheability
> > > "wires" and de-facto making the redistributors and ITSes non-coherent
> > > memory observers.
> > > 
> > > This series aims at starting a discussion over a possible solution
> > > to this problem, by adding to the GIC device tree bindings the
> > > standard dma-noncoherent property. The GIC driver uses the property
> > > to force the redistributors and ITSes shareability attributes to
> > > non-shareable, which consequently forces the driver to use CMOs
> > > on GIC memory tables.
> > > 
> > > On ARM DT DMA is default non-coherent, so the GIC driver can't rely
> > > on the generic DT dma-coherent/non-coherent property management layer
> > > (of_dma_is_coherent()) which would default all GIC designs in the field
> > > as non-coherent; it has to rely on ad-hoc dma-noncoherent property
> > > handling.
> > > 
> > > When a consistent approach is agreed upon for DT an equivalent binding
> > > will
> > > be put forward for ACPI based systems.
> > 
> > What is the plan for this last point? I'd like to see at least
> > a proposal before taking this series in.
> 
> Absolutely, I am starting a thread on related MADT changes, should not
> take too long.

Quick update, bindings filed, I will code against it but we should
not merge anything till it is approved (could be missing v6.7 timeline).

https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4557

Lorenzo