Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] PCI/MSI: Check msi_addr_mask in msi_verify_entries()
Vivian Wang <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.sophgo,org.freedesktop.lists.amd-gfx,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci,org.kernel.vger.linux-sound,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/22/26 07:38, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > [+cc Thomas, thread at https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]] > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:49:38AM +0800, Vivian Wang wrote: >> Instead of a 32-bit/64-bit dichotomy, check the MSI address against >> msi_addr_mask. >> >> This allows platforms with MSI doorbell above 32-bit address space to >> work with devices without full 64-bit MSI address support, as long as >> the doorbell is within addressable range of MSI of the device. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vivian Wang <[email protected]> >> >> --- >> v2: No changes >> --- >> drivers/pci/msi/msi.c | 9 ++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/msi/msi.c b/drivers/pci/msi/msi.c >> index 48f5f03d1479..2ecbcd6c436a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/msi/msi.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/msi/msi.c >> @@ -321,14 +321,17 @@ static int msi_setup_msi_desc(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, >> static int msi_verify_entries(struct pci_dev *dev) >> { >> struct msi_desc *entry; >> + u64 address; >> >> if (dev->msi_addr_mask == DMA_BIT_MASK(64)) >> return 0; >> >> msi_for_each_desc(entry, &dev->dev, MSI_DESC_ALL) { >> - if (entry->msg.address_hi) { >> - pci_err(dev, "arch assigned 64-bit MSI address %#x%08x but device only supports 32 bits\n", >> - entry->msg.address_hi, entry->msg.address_lo); >> + address = (u64)entry->msg.address_hi << 32 | >> + entry->msg.address_lo; >> + if (address & ~dev->msi_addr_mask) { >> + pci_err(dev, "arch assigned 64-bit MSI address %llx above device MSI address mask %llx\n", > Use %#llx so it's clear these addresses are hex. The previous message > did that, not sure why you dropped it. Thanks for catching. I misunderstood the purpose of the original message formatting. I will fix this in v3. Vivian "dramforever" Wang