lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 03/14] PCI: cadence: Convert all r/w accessors to perform only 32-bit accesses
From
Date
Hi Rob,

On 5/28/2020 3:36 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 5/27/2020 10:07 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:49 AM Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On 5/26/2020 8:42 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:30 PM Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2020 9:24 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:37 PM Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certain platforms like TI's J721E using Cadence PCIe IP can perform only
>>>>>>> 32-bit accesses for reading or writing to Cadence registers. Convert all
>>>>>>> read and write accesses to 32-bit in Cadence PCIe driver in preparation
>>>>>>> for adding PCIe support in TI's J721E SoC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking more closely I don't think cdns_pcie_ep_assert_intx is okay
>>>>>> with this and never can be given the PCI_COMMAND and PCI_STATUS
>>>>>> registers are in the same word (IIRC, that's the main reason 32-bit
>>>>>> config space accesses are broken). So this isn't going to work at
>>>>>
>>>>> right, PCI_STATUS has write '1' to clear bits and there's a chance that it
>>>>> could be reset while raising legacy interrupt. While this cannot be avoided for
>>>>> TI's J721E, other platforms doesn't have to have this limitation.
>>>>>> least for EP accesses. And maybe you need a custom .raise_irq() hook
>>>>>> to minimize any problems (such as making the RMW atomic at least from
>>>>>> the endpoint's perspective).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is to make sure EP doesn't update in-consistent state when RC is updating
>>>>> the PCI_STATUS register? Since this involves two different systems, how do we
>>>>> make this atomic?
>>>>
>>>> You can't make it atomic WRT both systems, but is there locking around
>>>> each RMW? Specifically, are preemption and interrupts disabled to
>>>> ensure time between a read and write are minimized? You wouldn't want
>>>> interrupts disabled during the delay too though (i.e. around
>>>> .raise_irq()).
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll add spin spin_lock_irqsave() in cdns_pcie_write_sz(). As you also
>>> pointed below that delay for legacy interrupt is wrong and it has to be fixed
>>> (with a later series).
>>
>> But you don't need a lock everywhere. You need locks in the callers
>> (and only sometimes).
>
> Okay, the locks should be added only for registers where HOST can also write to
> the same register? Maybe only raise_irq then..
>
>>
>>> How do you want to handle cdns_pcie_ep_fn_writew() now? Because now we are
>>> changing the default implementation to perform only 32-bit access (used for
>>> legacy interrupt, msi-x interrupt and while writing standard headers) and it's
>>> not okay only for legacy interrupts for platforms other than TI.
>>
>> Now I'm wondering how set_msi is not racy in the current code with the
>> host setting/clearing PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE? Maybe that bit is RO from
>> the EP side?
>
> set_msi/set_msix is a one time configuration that is invoked before the host
> establishes the link with the endpoint. I don't think we have to consider this
> as racy.

Can we try to close on this discussion please?

Thanks
Kishon

>
> Thanks
> Kishon
>
>>
>> Ultimately I think you're going to have to provide your own endpoint
>> functions or you need accessors for specific registers like
>> PCI_MSI_FLAGS. Then for example, you just rely on the 2 bytes before
>> PCI_MSI_FLAGS being reserved and do a 32-bit access without a RMW.
>> Trying to abstract this at the register read/write level is going to
>> be fragile
>>
>> Rob
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-01 03:17    [W:0.072 / U:2.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site