On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 07:41:01AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:

Hi Bjorn, Lorenzo

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas at 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 at google.com';
'arnd at arndb.de'; 'tn at semihalf.com'; 'linux-pci at vger.kernel.org';
'linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org'; xuwei (O); 'linux-
acpi at vger.kernel.org'; 'jcm at redhat.com'; zhangjukuo; Liguozhu
(Kenneth); 'linux-arm-kernel at 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:

quoted

Hi Bjorn,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 01:59:12PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:07:50PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 03:01:19AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

I do not understand how PNP0c02 works, currently, by the way.

If I read x86 code correctly, the unassigned PCI bus resources

are

quoted

quoted

quoted

assigned in arch/x86/pci/i386.c (?)

fs_initcall(pcibios_assign_resources),

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

core x86 code reassign resources, defeating the purpose PNP0c02

was

quoted

quoted

quoted

designed for, namely, request motherboard regions before

resources

quoted

quoted

quoted

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,

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

on x86, at least, most ACPI devices are already configured by the

BIOS

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

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).

quoted

quoted

If the platform doesn't report resource usage correctly on ARM, we

may

quoted

quoted

not find problems (because we don't have the Windows test suite)

and

quoted

quoted

if we have resource assignment problems because _CRS is lacking,

we'll

quoted

quoted

have no way to fix them.

And I think here you mean we can't prevent assigning resource space

to

quoted

devices that do not necessarily own it because since some devices

_CRS

quoted

are borked/missing we have no way to detect the address space

allocated

quoted

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.

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.

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

kernel did not even register the PNP0c02 driver

(drivers/pnp/system.c)

quoted

quoted

quoted

(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

quoted

quoted

quoted

mechanism is part of the PCI fw specs, which are x86 centric

anyway

quoted

quoted

quoted

ie we can't certainly rely on Int15 e820 to detect reserved

memory

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

Rafael, any thoughts on this whole thing?

Bjorn

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi"

in

quoted

the body of a message to majordomo at 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 at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html