Hi,
On 2024/5/17 19:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.05.2024 13:14, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2024/5/17 18:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.05.2024 12:45, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>>> On 2024/5/16 22:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 16.05.2024 11:52, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>>>>>> + if ( gsi >= nr_irqs_gsi )
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if ( !irq_access_permitted(current->domain, gsi) ||
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. assuming IRQ == GSI? Is that a valid assumption when any number of
>>>>> source overrides may be surfaced by ACPI?
>>>> All irqs smaller than nr_irqs_gsi are gsi, aren't they?
>>>
>>> They are, but there's not necessarily a 1:1 mapping.
>> Oh, so do I need to add a new gsi_caps to store granted gsi?
>
> Probably not. You ought to be able to translate between GSI and IRQ,
> and then continue to record in / check against IRQ permissions.
But I found in function init_irq_data:
for ( irq = 0; irq < nr_irqs_gsi; irq++ )
{
int rc;
desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
desc->irq = irq;
rc = init_one_irq_desc(desc);
if ( rc )
return rc;
}
Does it mean that when irq < nr_irqs_gsi, the gsi and irq is a 1:1 mapping?
What's more, when using PHYSDEVOP_setup_gsi, it calls mp_register_gsi,
and in mp_register_gsi, it uses " desc = irq_to_desc(gsi); " to get irq_desc
directly.
Combining above, can we consider "gsi == irq" when irq < nr_irqs_gsi ?
>
> Jan
--
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.
