Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v3 02/35] ppc/xive: add support for the LSI interrupt sources

[Cédric Le Goater]

On 04/27/2018 04:43 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>>> I did some work on that topic a while ago :
>>>>
>>>>    https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/836782/
>>>>
>>>> But we stopped exploring the idea. May be it was not the good approach.
>>>> The PHBs LSIs would benefit from such a split though.
>>> So, no, I don't think that was a good approach, but that doesn't mean
>>> other ways of rearranging the irq numbers aren't ok.  The thing here
>>> is that we don't want to think of an "irq allocator" - there are some
>>> bits like that in there already, but they were always a mistake.
>>>
>>> We have lots of irq space (both XICS and XIVE) so instead we should
>>> come up with a static mapping of irqs to devices.
>> yes. I would prefer that also. 
>>
>> We could change the spapr_irq_alloc() routine to get a block of 
>> IRQs in the range defined for a device family, and use a device 
>> id to offset in that family range ? Here are some figures :
>>
>> device family        block size  max devices  
>>
>> EVENT_CLASS_EPOW              1           1  
>> EVENT_CLASS_HOT_PLUG          1           1   
>> VIO_VSCSI                     1          10  
>> VIO_LLAN                      1          10  
>> VIO_VTY                       1           5  
>>                       
>> PCI/PHB                    1024           5  
> No, I'm thinking we should eliminate spapr_irq_alloc() entirely.
> Well, ok, not entirely, we'll still need it for the old machine
> types.  But remove it's use for the current machine type completely.
> 
> Instead we have an explicit map of ranges for various purposes.  The
> one-off things like EPOW and HOTPLUG can have plain constant values.
> PCI LSIs will be calculated as something like PCI_IRQ_BASE + <phb
> index>*4 + <irq pin>.  The VIO devices we handle as VIO_BASE + <reg
> value> or something.
> 
> MSIs will still need some sort of allocation, but we can do that
> within a range set aside for them.

Should we address the static mapping of irqs before introducing XIVE ? 

I don't think it changes much of the architecture now that the allocator
is under the machine. However, I wonder what would be the impact of 
PHB hotplug. 

C.