On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 06:57:20AM -0800, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 08:25:25AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 02:28:30AM -0800, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:

quoted

Hi Bjorn,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:12:37PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

Hi Vadim,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:25:52AM -0800, Vadim Lomovtsev wrote:

quoted

This patch is to address PEM initialization issue
which causes network issues.

It is necessary to search for _HID:PNP0A08 while requesting
PEM resources via ACPI instead of "THRX0002".

Signed-off-by: Vadim Lomovtsev <redacted>
---
 drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c
index af722eb..aec30b8 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c

@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ static int thunder_pem_acpi_init(struct pci_config_window *cfg)
 	if (!res_pem)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	ret = acpi_get_rc_resources(dev, "THRX0002", root->segment, res_pem);
+	ret = acpi_get_rc_resources(dev, "PNP0A08", root->segment, res_pem);

This doesn't smell right: PNP0A08 is the generic ACPI ID.  There's no
guarantee that if we find a PNP0A08 device, it is a ThunderX device.

I think the only way to call thunder_pem_acpi_init() is via an MCFG
quirk that mentions thunder_pem_ecam_ops, which means we only call it
if we find an MCFG with "CAVIUM" "THUNDERX" OEM and table IDs, so it's
probably safe in that sense.

Agree, it is not the best solution.
We will implement such approach and send for review. 

quoted

But it's an abuse of the ACPI _HID model.  If you match a device using
PNP0A08, all you can assume about it is that it uses the generic
PNP0A08 programming model, and I don't think that includes "the first
memory resource in _CRS contains ECAM space and MSI-X tables."

I expect this is a teething issue because you have firmware in the
field that uses PNP0A08 and it's not feasible to update it.  If that's
the case, the changelog should have details about it and we should
have a comment in the code, because I don't think this is the model we
want to end up with in future releases.

It could become so. However, for now I didn't get any reports on that,
(may be I miss something) except some internal emailings.
At my testing HW I was able to see some issues related to acpi-PEM stuff.

Thanks for feed-back, we will prepare another patch or patchset
implementing approach you've highlighted.

The approach I would like best is to search for THRX0002, because then
you know you have a ThunderX PEM device, and you can assume
device-specific details about its _CRS.

But that's what the existing code does, and apparently that doesn't
work.  My guess is that you have firmware in the field where the host
bridge has only PNP0A08 (and maybe PNP0A03) as device IDs.

Because there is no such ACPI ID as "THRX0002" registered
(http://www.uefi.org/acpi_id_list).

To be pedantically correct, I think you want "THRX" registered.  Then
you can manage the "0002" part internally without registering each
individual device.

From the other hand we may gather device resources through
_CRS (we have acpi_device already set by this moment) but
we need to be sure that we're running at Cavium ThunderX board then.

To do that we may add _SUB value (accrodingly to spec) with
exact ID string (a full PCI ID value "177DA22D" is suggested).
This will eventually become the main method of finding out
whether we run on a ThunderX PEM.

I don't understand why you would use _SUB.  I think the correct way to
handle this is to use a _HID of "THRX0002" with a _CID of "PNP0A08".
Is there some existing _SUB usage you're using as an example?

Bjorn