Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] PCI: Introduce INTx check & mask API

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2012-05-24 04:44, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> [Found while debugging VFIO on POWER but it is platform independent]
> 
> There is a feature in PCI (>=2.3?) to mask/unmask INTx via PCI_COMMAND and
> PCI_STATUS registers.

Yes, 2.3 introduced this. Masking is done via command register, checking
if the source was the PCI in question via the status register. The
latter is important for supporting IRQ sharing - and that's why we
introduced this masking API to the PCI layer.

> 
> And there is some API to support that (commit 
> a2e27787f893621c5a6b865acf6b7766f8671328).
> 
> I have a network adapter:
> 0001:00:01.0 Ethernet controller: Chelsio Communications Inc T310 10GbE 
> Single Port Adapter
>       Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr+ 
> Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- DisINTx-
>       Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- 
> <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
> 
> pci_intx_mask_supported() reports that the feature is supported for this 
> adapter
> BUT the adapter does not set PCI_STATUS_INTERRUPT so 
> pci_check_and_set_intx_mask()
> never changes PCI_COMMAND and INTx does not work on it when we use it as 
> VFIO-PCI device.
> 
> If I remove the check of this bit, it works fine as it is called from an 
> interrupt handler and
> Status bit check is redundant.
> 
> Opened a spec:
> PCI LOCAL BUS SPECIFICATION, REV. 3.0, Table 6-2: Status Register Bits
> ===
> 3     This read-only bit reflects the state of the interrupt in the
> device/function. Only when the Interrupt Disable bit in the command
> register is a 0 and this Interrupt Status bit is a 1, will the
> device’s/function’s INTx# signal be asserted. Setting the Interrupt
>    Disable bit to a 1 has no effect on the state of this bit.
> ===
> With this adapter, INTx# is asserted but Status bit is still 0.
> 
> Is it mandatory for a device to set Status bit if it supports INTx masking?
> 
> 2 Alex: if it is mandatory, then we need to be able to disable pci_2_3 in 
> VFIO-PCI
> somehow.

Since PCI 2.3, this bit is mandatory, and it should be independent of
the masking bit. The question is, if your device is supposed to support
2.3, thus is just buggy, or if our detection algorithm is unreliable. It
basically builds on the assumption that, if we can flip the mask bit,
the feature should be present. I guess that is the best we can do. Maybe
we can augment this with a blacklist of devices that "support" flipping
without actually providing the feature.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux