On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 06:31:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:44:53AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:17:58PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:26:49PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:06:37PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:

quoted

As we now have valid PCI host bridge device reference we can
introduce code that is going to find its bus domain number using
ACPI _SEG method.

Note that _SEG method is optional, therefore _SEG absence means
that all PCI buses belong to domain 0.

While at it, for the sake of code clarity we put ACPI and DT domain
assign methods into the corresponding helpers.

Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>
Tested-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Tested-by: Jeremy Linton <redacted>
Tested-by: Duc Dang <redacted>
Tested-by: Dongdong Liu <redacted>
Tested-by: Hanjun Guo <redacted>
Tested-by: Graeme Gregory <redacted>
Tested-by: Sinan Kaya <redacted>
---
 drivers/acpi/pci_root.c  | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/pci/pci.c        | 11 +++++++++--
 include/linux/pci-acpi.h |  2 ++
 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
index 4581e0e..d9a70c4 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_root.c

@@ -419,6 +419,24 @@ out:
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_osc_control_set);
 
+int acpi_pci_bus_domain_nr(struct device *parent)

It looks like acpi_pci_bus_domain_nr() could be under #ifdef
CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC, right?

Yes it should.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+{
+	struct acpi_device *acpi_dev = to_acpi_device(parent);
+	unsigned long long segment = 0;
+	acpi_status status;
+
+	/*
+	 * If _SEG method does not exist, following ACPI spec (6.5.6)
+	 * all PCI buses belong to domain 0.
+	 */
+	status = acpi_evaluate_integer(acpi_dev->handle, METHOD_NAME__SEG, NULL,
+				       &segment);

We already have code in acpi_pci_root_add() to evaluate _SEG.  We
don't want to evaluate it *twice*, do we?

I was sort of expecting that if you added it here, we'd remove the
existing call, but it looks like you're keeping both?

We can't remove the existing call, since it is used on X86 and IA64
to store the segment number that, in the process, is used in their
pci_domain_nr() arch specific callback to retrieve the domain nr.

On ARM64, that selects PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC, we have to find a way
to retrieve the domain number that is not arch dependent, since
this is generic code, we can't rely on any bus->sysdata format (unless
we do something like JC did below), therefore the only way is to call
the _SEG method *again* here, which also forced Tomasz to go through
the ACPI_COMPANION setting song and dance and pass the parent pointer
to pci_create_root_bus() (see patch 1), which BTW is a source of
trouble on its own as you noticed.

JC solved it differently, via sysdata and pseudo-generic code:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg478167.html

The thing I don't like about this is the special case of checking
parent and parent->of_node to figure out whether we should use the
segment from ACPI and the fragility of depending on the fact that the
companion hasn't been set yet.

quoted

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg478169.html

I like neither, we need the lesser of two evils though.

Today we call pci_bus_assign_domain_nr() from the PCI core (from
pci_create_root_bus()).  This is only implemented for
PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC, but even so, it fiddles around to figure out
whether to get the domain from DT or to assign a new one.

That seems backwards to me.  The host bridge drivers already know
where the domain should come from (ACPI _SEG, DT, etc.) and in the
long term, I think they should be responsible for looking up or
assigning a domain number *before* they call pci_create_root_bus().

Yes, the question still is how pci_create_root_bus() can get that
value (I am pretty certain this was heavily debated in the past, which
does not mean we can't give it another try).

The main issue is that pci_create_root_bus() does a weird dance trying to
figure out if the root bus hasn't been already allocated. It allocates a
new bus, assigns a domain number and then it tries to find it in the list
of already allocated busses. Because pci_alloc_bus() does not pass any
additional information, pci_bus_assign_domain_nr() needs to try to guess
where the barely initialised bus should live and give you back a number.

Simplifying the creation of root busses to be the job of the host bridges
would greatly simplify the code as well.

Best regards,
Liviu

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && status != AE_NOT_FOUND)
+		dev_err(&acpi_dev->dev, "can't evaluate _SEG\n");
+
+	return segment;
+}
+
 static void negotiate_os_control(struct acpi_pci_root *root, int *no_aspm)
 {
 	u32 support, control, requested;

diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
index 25e0327..1a74e87 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c

@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <linux/string.h>
 #include <linux/log2.h>
+#include <linux/pci-acpi.h>
 #include <linux/pci-aspm.h>
 #include <linux/pm_wakeup.h>
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>

@@ -4779,7 +4780,7 @@ int pci_get_new_domain_nr(void)
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC
-void pci_bus_assign_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus, struct device *parent)
+static int of_pci_bus_domain_nr(struct device *parent)
 {
 	static int use_dt_domains = -1;
 	int domain = -1;

@@ -4823,7 +4824,13 @@ void pci_bus_assign_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus, struct device *parent)
 		domain = -1;
 	}
 
-	bus->domain_nr = domain;
+	return domain;
+}
+
+void pci_bus_assign_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus, struct device *parent)
+{
+	bus->domain_nr = acpi_disabled ? of_pci_bus_domain_nr(parent) :
+					 acpi_pci_bus_domain_nr(parent);

We have the pci_bus * here, so to_pci_host_bridge(bus->bridge) gives
us the struct pci_host_bridge.  I can't remember why we put domain_nr
in the struct pci_bus instead of in the struct pci_host_bridge.  It
seems like pci_host_bridge is the more logical place for it, because
every bus below the host bridge must have the same domain by
definition.

Would it be feasible to either (a) move domain_nr to the
pci_host_bridge, or (b) change acpi_pci_bus_domain_nr() so it uses the
struct pci_bus * or the struct device * to find the struct
acpi_pci_root where segment has already been stored by
acpi_pci_root_add()?

(b) is what JC implemented even though it works differently for
different hosts since it all depends on what's in bus->sysdata.

It can certainly be done in a generic way (that works on X86 and IA64
too), let's give it more thought.

quoted

Another wrinkle is the quirk added by 1f09b09b4de0 ("x86/PCI: Ignore
_SEG on HP xw9300").  x86 doesn't use PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC yet, so this
patch wouldn't break it, but I hope x86 can use PCI_DOMAINS_GENERIC in
the future, and then it will be a problem if we evaluate _SEG again.

Yes, I share your concern here and I thought about that, if that's the
end goal let's find a solution that works across arches (or we temporarily
use JC's code and we then generalize it).

Thanks,
Lorenzo

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 }
 #endif
 #endif

diff --git a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
index 89ab057..a72e22d 100644
--- a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
+++ b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h

@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ static inline acpi_status pci_acpi_remove_pm_notifier(struct acpi_device *dev)
 {
 	return acpi_remove_pm_notifier(dev);
 }
+extern int acpi_pci_bus_domain_nr(struct device *parent);
 extern phys_addr_t acpi_pci_root_get_mcfg_addr(acpi_handle handle);
 
 static inline acpi_handle acpi_find_root_bridge_handle(struct pci_dev *pdev)

@@ -109,6 +110,7 @@ extern const u8 pci_acpi_dsm_uuid[];
 #else	/* CONFIG_ACPI */
 static inline void acpi_pci_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) { }
 static inline void acpi_pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) { }
+static inline int acpi_pci_bus_domain_nr(struct device *parent) { return -1; }
 #endif	/* CONFIG_ACPI */
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI

-- 
1.9.1

--
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

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ?\_(?)_/?