Re: [PATCH 11/24] RISC-V: ACPI: irqchip/riscv-intc: Add ACPI support

[Sunil V L]

Hi Jessica,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:38:49PM +0000, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2023, at 18:22, Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Add support for initializing the RISC-V INTC driver on ACPI based
> > platforms.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-intc.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-intc.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-intc.c
> > index f229e3e66387..044ec92fcba7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-intc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-intc.c
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> >  */
> > 
> > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "riscv-intc: " fmt
> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > #include <linux/atomic.h>
> > #include <linux/bits.h>
> > #include <linux/cpu.h>
> > @@ -112,6 +113,30 @@ static struct fwnode_handle *riscv_intc_hwnode(void)
> > 	return intc_domain->fwnode;
> > }
> > 
> > +static int __init riscv_intc_init_common(struct fwnode_handle *fn)
> > +{
> > +	int rc;
> > +
> > +	intc_domain = irq_domain_create_linear(fn, BITS_PER_LONG,
> > +					       &riscv_intc_domain_ops, NULL);
> > +	if (!intc_domain) {
> > +		pr_err("unable to add IRQ domain\n");
> > +		return -ENXIO;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	rc = set_handle_irq(&riscv_intc_irq);
> > +	if (rc) {
> > +		pr_err("failed to set irq handler\n");
> > +		return rc;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	riscv_set_intc_hwnode_fn(riscv_intc_hwnode);
> > +
> > +	pr_info("%d local interrupts mapped\n", BITS_PER_LONG);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int __init riscv_intc_init(struct device_node *node,
> > 				  struct device_node *parent)
> > {
> > @@ -133,24 +158,54 @@ static int __init riscv_intc_init(struct device_node *node,
> > 	if (riscv_hartid_to_cpuid(hartid) != smp_processor_id())
> > 		return 0;
> > 
> > -	intc_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node, BITS_PER_LONG,
> > -					    &riscv_intc_domain_ops, NULL);
> > -	if (!intc_domain) {
> > -		pr_err("unable to add IRQ domain\n");
> > -		return -ENXIO;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	rc = set_handle_irq(&riscv_intc_irq);
> > +	rc = riscv_intc_init_common(of_node_to_fwnode(node));
> > 	if (rc) {
> > -		pr_err("failed to set irq handler\n");
> > +		pr_err("failed to initialize INTC\n");
> > 		return rc;
> > 	}
> > 
> > -	riscv_set_intc_hwnode_fn(riscv_intc_hwnode);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > 
> > -	pr_info("%d local interrupts mapped\n", BITS_PER_LONG);
> > +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(riscv, "riscv,cpu-intc", riscv_intc_init);
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +
> > +static int __init
> > +riscv_intc_acpi_init(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > +		     const unsigned long end)
> > +{
> > +	int rc;
> > +	struct fwnode_handle *fn;
> > +	struct acpi_madt_rintc *rintc;
> > +
> > +	rintc = (struct acpi_madt_rintc *)header;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The ACPI MADT will have one INTC for each CPU (or HART)
> > +	 * so riscv_intc_acpi_init() function will be called once
> > +	 * for each INTC. We only need to do INTC initialization
> > +	 * for the INTC belonging to the boot CPU (or boot HART).
> > +	 */
> > +	if (riscv_hartid_to_cpuid(rintc->hart_id) != smp_processor_id())
> > +		return 0;
> 
> Why are we carrying forward this mess to ACPI? The DT bindings are
> awful and a complete pain to deal with, as evidenced by how both Linux
> and FreeBSD have to go out of their way to do special things to only
> look at one of the many copies of the same thing.
>

Local interrupt controller structures are per-cpu in any architecture.
So, there will be multiple such structures. It is upto the OS to choose
one of them. What is the issue here?

The RISC-V DT code is selecting the one which is corresponding to the boot
cpu. While in ACPI we can choose any one, I think it is better to
follow the DT code to keep it similar and boot cpu is always guaranteed
to be available.

Thanks!
Sunil