On 2/12/2025 9:42 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 05:43:21PM -0800, Roman Kisel wrote:

[...]

quoted

+	 * function called later.

The rest of this file fits in 80 columns; please wrap this to match.

Will fix, thank you for taking the time to review that!

quoted

+	 */
+	if (!domain)
+		WARN_ONCE(1, "No interrupt-parent found, check the DeviceTree data.\n");

Is there a way to include a hint about what specific part of the
devicetree to look at, e.g., the node that lacks a parent?

I'll improve this, will mention the bus, thanks!

[...]

quoted

+	 * the messy ifdef below.

Add a blank line if you intend a new paragraph here.  Otherwise, wrap
to fill 78 columns or so.

Will fix this, appreciate noticing that!

quoted

+	 * There is apparently no such default in the OF subsystem, and
+	 * `hv_pci_of_irq_domain_parent` finds the parent IRQ domain that
+	 * points to the GIC as well.

And here.

Will fix, thanks!

quoted

+	 * None of these two cases reaches for the MSI parent domain.

I don't know what "reaches for the MSI parent domain" means.  Neither
"searches for"?

My bad, sorry about the incomprehensible phrasing! Will fix this, thank
you!

quoted

  	 */
-	hv_msi_gic_irq_domain = acpi_irq_create_hierarchy(0, HV_PCI_MSI_SPI_NR,
-							  fn, &hv_pci_domain_ops,
-							  chip_data);
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+	if (!acpi_disabled)
+		hv_msi_gic_irq_domain = acpi_irq_create_hierarchy(0, HV_PCI_MSI_SPI_NR,
+			fn, &hv_pci_domain_ops,
+			chip_data);
+#endif
+#if defined(CONFIG_OF)
+	if (!hv_msi_gic_irq_domain)
+		hv_msi_gic_irq_domain = irq_domain_create_hierarchy(
+			hv_pci_of_irq_domain_parent(), 0, HV_PCI_MSI_SPI_NR,
+			fn, &hv_pci_domain_ops,
+			chip_data);
+#endif

I don't know if acpi_irq_create_hierarchy() is helping or hurting
here.  It obscures the fact that the only difference is the first
argument to irq_domain_create_hierarchy().  If we could open-code or
have a helper to figure out that irq_domain "parent" argument for the
ACPI case, then we'd only have one call of
irq_domain_create_hierarchy() here and it seems like it might be
simpler.

That looks quite dirty, no dispute over that... The root device was
static/provate for the ACPI case, and I didn't go for changing the ACPI
subsystem code to improve this patch, thought the only user wouldn't
justify tinkering with the whole ACPI subsystem. Maybe I also will
need to see if that can be used from a module/builti-in, locking,
bogus usage, i.e. all that normally comes with promoting a private
interface to public.

Let me work out the details and post the change here to see what
feedback that receives.

Last but certainly not least: owing a great debt of gratitude to you
(and all other folks) for helping in bringing this to the best shape
possible!

-- 
Thank you,
Roman