On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 07:28:12AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

On 23 November 2016 at 01:06, Bjorn Helgaas [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:09:50AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

quoted

On 17 November 2016 at 17:59, Bjorn Helgaas [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

+PCI host bridges are PNP0A03 or PNP0A08 devices.  Their _CRS should
+describe all the address space they consume.  In principle, this would
+be all the windows they forward down to the PCI bus, as well as the
+bridge registers themselves.  The bridge registers include things like
+secondary/subordinate bus registers that determine the bus range below
+the bridge, window registers that describe the apertures, etc.  These
+are all device-specific, non-architected things, so the only way a
+PNP0A03/PNP0A08 driver can manage them is via _PRS/_CRS/_SRS, which
+contain the device-specific details.  These bridge registers also
+include ECAM space, since it is consumed by the bridge.
+
+ACPI defined a Producer/Consumer bit that was intended to distinguish
+the bridge apertures from the bridge registers [4, 5].  However,
+BIOSes didn't use that bit correctly, and the result is that OSes have
+to assume that everything in a PCI host bridge _CRS is a window.  That
+leaves no way to describe the bridge registers in the PNP0A03/PNP0A08
+device itself.

Is that universally true? Or is it still possible to do the right
thing here on new ACPI architectures such as arm64?

That's a very good question.  I had thought that the ACPI spec had
given up on Consumer/Producer completely, but I was wrong.  In the 6.0
spec, the Consumer/Producer bit is still documented in the Extended
Address Space Descriptor (sec 6.4.3.5.4).  It is documented as
"ignored" in the QWord, DWord, and Word descriptors (sec 6.4.3.5.1,2,3).

Linux looks at the producer_consumer bit in acpi_decode_space(), which
I think is used for all these descriptors (QWord, DWord, Word, and
Extended).  This doesn't quite follow the spec -- we probably should
ignore it except for Extended.  In any event, acpi_decode_space() sets
IORESOURCE_WINDOW for Producer descriptors, but we don't test
IORESOURCE_WINDOW in the PCI host bridge code.

x86 and ia64 supply their own pci_acpi_root_prepare_resources()
functions that call acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(), which parses _CRS
and looks at producer_consumer.  Then they do a little arch-specific
stuff on the result.

On arm64 we use acpi_pci_probe_root_resources() directly, with no
arch-specific stuff.

On all three arches, we ignore the Consumer/Producer bit, so all the
resources are treated as Producers, e.g., as bridge windows.

I think we *could* implement an arm64 version of
pci_acpi_root_prepare_resources() that would pay attention to the
Consumer/Producer bit by checking IORESOURCE_WINDOW.  To be spec
compliant, we would have to use Extended descriptors for all bridge
windows, even if they would fit in a DWord or QWord.

Should we do that?  I dunno.  I'd like to hear your opinion(s).

Yes, I think we should. If the spec allows for a way for a PNP0A03
device to describe all of its resources unambiguously, we should not
be relying on workarounds that were designed for another architecture
in another decade (for, presumably, another OS)

That was the idea I floated at LPC16. We can override the
acpi_pci_root_ops prepare_resources() function pointer with a function
that checks IORESOURCE_WINDOW and filters resources accordingly (and
specific quirk "drivers" may know how to intepret resources that aren't
IORESOURCE_WINDOW - ie they can use it to describe the PCI ECAM config
space quirk region in their _CRS).

In a way that's something that makes sense anyway because given
that we are starting from a clean slate on ARM64 considering resources
that are not IORESOURCE_WINDOW as host bridge windows is just something
we are inheriting from x86, it is not really ACPI specs compliant (is
it ?).

quoted

Just for my understanding, we will need to use extended descriptors
for all consumed *and* produced regions, even though dword/qword are
implicitly produced-only, due to the fact that the bit is ignored?

That's something that has to be clarified within the ASWG ie why the
consumer bit is ignored for *some* descriptors and not for others.

As things stand unfortunately the answer seems yes (I do not know
why).

quoted

quoted

It *would* be nice to have bridge registers in the bridge _CRS.  That
would eliminate the need for looking up the HISI0081/PNP0C02 devices
to find the bridge registers.  Avoiding that lookup is only a
temporary advantage -- the next round of bridges are supposed to fully
implement ECAM, and then we won't need to know where the registers
are.

Apart from the lookup, there's still some advantage in describing the
registers in the PNP0A03 device instead of an unrelated PNP0C02
device, because it makes /proc/iomem more accurate and potentially
makes host bridge hotplug cleaner.  We would have to enhance the host
bridge driver to do the reservations currently done by pnp/system.c.

There's some value in doing it the same way as on x86, even though
that way is somewhat broken.

Whatever we decide, I think it's very important to get it figured out
ASAP because it affects the ECAM quirks that we're trying to merge in
v4.10.

I agree. What exactly is the impact for the quirks mechanism as proposed?

The impact is that we could just use the PNP0A03 _CRS to report the PCI
ECAM config space quirk region through a consumer resource keeping in
mind what I say above (actually I think that's what was done on APM
firmware initially, for the records).

Just to clarify: APM firmware initially has a _CSR region to declare
the controller register region. We don't know that we need to declare
the reserved space for ECAM until Bjorn pointed out recently (with the
usage of PNP0C02).

I really like this idea about declaring ECAM space and any additional
spaces required for ECAM quirk inside PNP0A03 _CRS. For the firmware
that already shipped, the quirk will need to add additional resources
(for ECAM and other needed regions) into the root-bus. If we decided
to go with this, do we still have time to make additional adjustment
for the current ECAM quirk and the foundation patches before
v4.10-rc1?

Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Linaro-acpi mailing list
Linaro-acpi at lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-acpi

Regards,
Duc Dang.