lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] PCI/ACPI: hisi: Add ACPI support for HiSilicon SoCs Host Controllers
Date
Hi Bjorn, many thanks for coming back on this

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@kernel.org]
> Sent: 14 March 2016 19:17
> To: Gabriele Paoloni
> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi; 'Mark Rutland'; Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo); Wangzhou
> (B); liudongdong (C); Linuxarm; qiujiang; 'bhelgaas@google.com';
> 'arnd@arndb.de'; 'tn@semihalf.com'; 'linux-pci@vger.kernel.org';
> 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; xuwei (O); 'linux-
> acpi@vger.kernel.org'; 'jcm@redhat.com'; zhangjukuo; Liguozhu
> (Kenneth); 'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] PCI/ACPI: hisi: Add ACPI support for
> HiSilicon SoCs Host Controllers
>
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 07:41:01AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn, Lorenzo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@kernel.org]
> > > Sent: 02 March 2016 15:51
> > > To: Lorenzo Pieralisi
> > > Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; 'Mark Rutland'; Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo);
> Wangzhou
> > > (B); liudongdong (C); Linuxarm; qiujiang; 'bhelgaas@google.com';
> > > 'arnd@arndb.de'; 'tn@semihalf.com'; 'linux-pci@vger.kernel.org';
> > > 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; xuwei (O); 'linux-
> > > acpi@vger.kernel.org'; 'jcm@redhat.com'; zhangjukuo; Liguozhu
> > > (Kenneth); 'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] PCI/ACPI: hisi: Add ACPI support
> for
> > > HiSilicon SoCs Host Controllers
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 07:22:47PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > Hi Bjorn,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:59:12PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:07:50PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 03:01:19AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > > I do not understand how PNP0c02 works, currently, by the way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I read x86 code correctly, the unassigned PCI bus
> resources
> > > are
> > > > > > assigned in arch/x86/pci/i386.c (?)
> > > fs_initcall(pcibios_assign_resources),
> > > > > > with a comment:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /**
> > > > > > * called in fs_initcall (one below subsys_initcall),
> > > > > > * give a chance for motherboard reserve resources
> > > > > > */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Problem is, motherboard resources are requested through (?):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > drivers/pnp/system.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which is also initialized at fs_initcall, so it might be
> called
> > > after
> > > > > > core x86 code reassign resources, defeating the purpose
> PNP0c02
> > > was
> > > > > > designed for, namely, request motherboard regions before
> > > resources
> > > > > > are assigned, am I wrong ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you're right. This is a long-standing screwup in
> Linux.
> > > > > IMHO, ACPI resources should be parsed and reserved by the ACPI
> > > core,
> > > > > before any PCI resource management (since PCI host bridges are
> > > > > represented in ACPI). But historically PCI devices have
> enumerated
> > > > > before ACPI got involved. And the ACPI core doesn't really pay
> > > > > attention to _CRS for most devices (with the exception of
> PNP0C02).
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO the PNP0C02 code in drivers/pnp/system.c should really be
> done
> > > in
> > > > > the ACPI core for all ACPI devices, similar to the way the PCI
> core
> > > > > reserves BAR space for all PCI devices, even if we don't have
> > > drivers
> > > > > for them. I've tried to fix this in the past, but it is really
> a
> > > > > nightmare to unravel everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the ACPI core doesn't reserve resources for the _CRS of
> all
> > > > > ACPI devices, we're already vulnerable to the problem of
> placing a
> > > > > device on top of another ACPI device. We don't see problems
> > > because
> > > > > on x86, at least, most ACPI devices are already configured by
> the
> > > BIOS
> > > > > to be enabled and non-overlapping. But x86 has the advantage
> of
> > > > > having extensive test coverage courtesy of Windows, and as long
> as
> > > > > _CRS has the right stuff in it, we at least have the potential
> of
> > > > > fixing problems in Linux.
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > By "fixing problems in Linux" above, you mean that, given that we
> > > > do have a validated _CRS space, we can request/reserve the region
> the
> > > _CRS
> > > > reports to prevent assigning those resources to other devices,
> > > correct ?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > I think part of what makes this difficult in Linux is that the
> > > resource tree is too strict about overlapping resources. We get
> > > address space information from E820 (on x86), static ACPI tables
> like
> > > MCFG, and dynamic things like ACPI _CRS. There's no real
> requirement
> > > that the BIOS should make all these consistent, but yet we try to
> jam
> > > it all into the same resource tree.
> > >
> > > For example, E820 might tell us that range A is reserved and
> > > unavailable to Linux. We stick it in the resource tree. Then we
> > > might have a _CRS that tells us about range B. We *want* to put
> range
> > > B in the resource tree, but if B overlaps part of A, the insert
> will
> > > fail.
> > >
> > > All we really need from E820 is the information that "you can't put
> > > devices in A". We don't need to enforce any relationship between A
> > > and B, but the current resource tree imposes unnecessary
> hierarchical
> > > requirements.
> > >
> > > I think issues like this are the biggest reason why the ACPI core
> > > doesn't reserve all _CRS space early on (Rafael may correct me
> here).
> > >
> > > > > If the platform doesn't report resource usage correctly on ARM,
> we
> > > may
> > > > > not find problems (because we don't have the Windows test
> suite)
> > > and
> > > > > if we have resource assignment problems because _CRS is
> lacking,
> > > we'll
> > > > > have no way to fix them.
> > > >
> > > > And I think here you mean we can't prevent assigning resource
> space
> > > to
> > > > devices that do not necessarily own it because since some devices
> > > _CRS
> > > > are borked/missing we have no way to detect the address space
> > > allocated
> > > > to them and we may end up with resources conflicts.
> > >
> > > The ACPI core currently doesn't reserve the space consumed by ACPI
> > > devices. Some drivers, e.g., for PNP0C02 (motherboard) and PNP0A03
> > > (PCI host bridge), do reserve their space, but the core itself does
> > > not.
> > >
> > > If we have drivers for all the ACPI devices, those drivers will
> > > probably use _CRS and reserve the space, and we'll probably notice
> any
> > > _CRS errors. But if we don't have drivers, e.g., for performance
> > > monitors or other non-essential things, nothing will use _CRS, and
> > > nothing will reserve the space used by the device, and it's hard to
> > > find errors.
> > >
> > > If we ever assign top-level resources, there's nothing to prevent
> us
> > > from creating a conflict. The only reason we don't trip over this
> is
> > > that we usually don't assign top-level resources because firmware
> does
> > > it for us.
> >
> > It seems that in this thread we have touched quite few issues.
> >
> > First is how to describe a PCI host controller config space resource:
> > as you highlighted before mentioning the specs, these resources
> should
> > be marked as "PNP0C02"; therefore I guess the current Nowicki
> patchset
> > must be reworked to check the resources to be motherboard reserved
> when
> > parsing the MCFG table.
>
> I think checking whether MCFG resources are reserved by motherboard
> ("PNP0C02") devices is a hack that was added on x86 because there were
> issues getting ECAM to work reliably. The theory at the time was that
> the problem was BIOS bugs. I don't know whether that's actually true
> or not.
>
> I'm not convinced that checking for PNP0C02 resources is something we
> should do in generic code. MCFG is a static table, and I don't think
> we should add dependencies on the ACPI namespace, because the point of
> static tables is to describe things we might need before the namespace
> is available.

Ok fine, then the current Nowicki patchset is good from this perspective

>
> > Also with respect to the ACPI table for my specific PCIe controller I
> > would use the following approach:
> >
> > // PCIe Root bus
> > Device (PCI1)
> > {
> > Name (_HID, "HISI0080") // PCI Express Root Bridge
> > Name (_CID, "PNP0A03") // Compatible PCI Root Bridge
> > Name(_SEG, 1) // Segment of this Root complex
> > Name(_BBN, 0) // Base Bus Number
> > Name(_CCA, 1)
> > Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) { // Root complex resources
> > Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate () {
> > WordBusNumber ( // Bus numbers assigned to this
> root
> > ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed,
> PosDecode,
> > 0, // AddressGranularity
> > 0, // AddressMinimum - Minimum Bus Number
> > 63, // AddressMaximum - Maximum Bus
> Number
> > 0, // AddressTranslation - Set to 0
> > 64 // RangeLength - Number of Busses
> > )
> > QWordMemory ( // 64-bit BAR Windows
> > ResourceProducer,
> > PosDecode,
> > MinFixed,
> > MaxFixed,
> > Cacheable,
> > ReadWrite,
> > 0x0000000000000000, // Granularity
> > 0x00000000b0000000, // Min Base Address
> pci address
> > 0x00000000bbfeffff, // Max Base Address
> > 0x0000021f54000000, // Translate
> > 0x000000000bff0000 // Length
> > )
> > QWordIO (
> > ResourceProducer,
> > MinFixed,
> > MaxFixed,
> > PosDecode,
> > EntireRange,
> > 0x0000000000000000, // Granularity
> > 0x0000000000000000, // Min Base Address
> > 0x000000000000ffff, // Max Base Address
> > 0x000002200fff0000, // Translate
> > 0x0000000000010000 // Length
> > )
> > }) // Name(RBUF)
> > Return (RBUF)
> > } // Method(_CRS)
> > Device (RES0)
> > {
> > Name (_HID, "HISI0081") // HiSi PCIe RC config base
> address
> > Name (_CID, "PNP0C02") // Motherboard reserved
> resource
> > Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate (){
> > Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, 0xb0080000 ,
> 0x10000)
> > })
> >
> > }
> >
> > So in the table above I have a sub-device under the RC to pass the
> address
> > for the RC config space (the rest of the config space addresses for
> bus 1
> > to 63 are passed in the MCFG). As you can see the device _CID is
> PNP0C02
> > As per ACPI specs.
> > Do you see anything wrong with this approach?
>
> It looks OK to me. The PCI Firmware spec r3.0, sec 4.1.2, does say
> that the motherboard resource would usually appear at the root of the
> namespace (under \_SB). That's not an absolute statement, but I don't
> know why it would be included at all unless the authors thought it was
> important for some reason.

Ok great so I'll start reworking my ACPI based quirk according to the
table above

Many Thanks

Gab

>
> > The second issue is when and how to reserve HW resources. As per
> > conversation above this seems quite a tricky issue and probably needs
> to
> > consider different aspects...
>
> I don't think resources should be reserved based on MCFG. Maybe we
> need to reserve MCFG areas on x86 for legacy reasons, but I don't
> think we should do it on arm64.
>
> > I was wondering if we can take a gradual approach; maybe for the time
> being
> > we can just rework Nowicki patchset to check the MCFG resources to be
> > motherboard reserved and later on we can make an effort to fix the
> resource
> > insertion mechanism making sure that it works right on both x86 and
> ARM.
> >
> > What do you think about?
> >
> > Many Thanks
> >
> > Gab
> >
> > >
> > > > > > As per last Tomasz's patchset, we claim and assign unassigned
> PCI
> > > > > > resources upon ACPI PCI host bridge probing (which happens at
> > > > > > subsys_initcall time, courtesy of ACPI current code); at that
> > > time the
> > > > > > kernel did not even register the PNP0c02 driver
> > > (drivers/pnp/system.c)
> > > > > > (it does that at fs_initcall). On the other hand, we insert
> MCFG
> > > > > > regions into the resource tree upon MCFG parsing, so I do not
> > > > > > see why we need to rely on PNP0c02 to do that for us
> (granted,
> > > the
> > > > > > mechanism is part of the PCI fw specs, which are x86 centric
> > > anyway
> > > > > > ie we can't certainly rely on Int15 e820 to detect reserved
> > > memory
> > > > > > on ARM :D)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is lots of legacy x86 here and Bjorn definitely has
> more
> > > > > > visibility into that than I have, the ARM world must
> understand
> > > > > > how this works to make sure we have an agreement.
> > > > >
> > > > > As you say, there is lots of unpleasant x86 legacy here.
> Possibly
> > > ARM
> > > > > has a chance to clean this up and do it more sanely; I'm not
> sure
> > > > > whether it's feasible to reverse the ACPI/PCI init order there
> or
> > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rafael, any thoughts on this whole thing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bjorn
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
> acpi"
> > > in
> > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-
> info.html
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi"
> in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-15 12:41    [W:0.074 / U:5.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site