On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:52:52AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
Hi Bjorn
-----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@kernel.org] Sent: 18 November 2016 17:54 To: Gabriele Paoloni Cc: Bjorn Helgaas; linux-pci@vger.kernel.org; linux- acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- kernel@lists.infradead.org; linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add information about describing PCI in ACPI
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 05:17:34PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Bjorn Helgaas Sent: 17 November 2016 18:00
+Static tables like MCFG, HPET, ECDT, etc., are *not* mechanisms
for
+reserving address space! The static tables are for things the OS +needs to know early in boot, before it can parse the ACPI
namespace.
+If a new table is defined, an old OS needs to operate correctly
even
+though it ignores the table. _CRS allows that because it is
generic
+and understood by the old OS; a static table does not.
Right so if my understanding is correct you are saying that resources described in the MCFG table should also be declared in PNP0C02
devices
so that the PNP driver can reserve these resources.
Yes.
On the other side the PCI Root bridge driver should not reserve such resources.
Well if my understanding is correct I think we have a problem here: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/pci/ecam.c#L74
As you can see pci_ecam_create() will conflict with the pnp driver as it will try to reserve the resources from the MCFG table...
Maybe we need to rework pci_ecam_create() ?
I think it's OK as it is.
The pnp/system.c driver does try to reserve PNP0C02 resources, and it marks them as "not busy". That way they appear in /proc/iomem and won't be allocated for anything else, but they can still be requested by drivers, e.g., pci/ecam.c, which will mark them "busy".
This is analogous to what the PCI core does in pci_claim_resource(). This is really a function of the ACPI/PNP *core*, which should reserve all _CRS resources for all devices (not just PNP0C02 devices). But it's done by pnp/system.c, and only for PNP0C02, because there's a bunch of historical baggage there.
You'll also notice that in this case, things are out of order: logically the pnp/system.c reservation should happen first, but in fact the pci/ecam.c request happens *before* the pnp/system.c one. That means the pnp/system.c one might fail and complain "[mem ...] could not be reserved".
Correct me if I am wrong...
So currently we are relying on the fact that pci_ecam_create() is called before the pnp driver. If the pnp driver came first we would end up in pci_ecam_create() failing here: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/pci/ecam.c#L76
I am not sure but it seems to me like a bit weak condition to rely on... what about removing the error condition in pci_ecam_create() and logging just a dev_info()?
Huh. I'm confused. I *thought* it would be safe to reverse the order, which would effectively be this:
system_pnp_probe reserve_resources_of_dev reserve_range request_mem_region([mem 0xb0000000-0xb1ffffff]) ... pci_ecam_create request_resource_conflict([mem 0xb0000000-0xb1ffffff])
but I experimented with the patch below on qemu, and it failed as you predicted:
** res test ** requested [mem 0xa0000000-0xafffffff] can't claim ECAM area [mem 0xa0000000-0xafffffff]: conflict with ECAM PNP [mem 0xa0000000-0xafffffff]
I expected the request_resource_conflict() to succeed since it's completely contained in the "ECAM PNP" region. But I guess I don't understand kernel/resource.c well enough.
I'm not sure we need to fix anything yet, since we currently do the ecam.c request before the system.c one, and any change there would be a long ways off. If/when that *does* change, I think the correct fix would be to change ecam.c so its request succeeds (by changing the way it does the request, fixing kernel/resource.c, or whatever) rather than to reduce the log level and ignore the failure.
Bjorn
diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/init.c b/arch/x86/pci/init.c index adb62aa..5a35638 100644 --- a/arch/x86/pci/init.c +++ b/arch/x86/pci/init.c @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ in the right sequence from here. */ static __init int pci_arch_init(void) { + struct resource *res, *conflict; + static struct resource cfg; #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_DIRECT int type = 0;
@@ -39,6 +41,26 @@ static __init int pci_arch_init(void)
dmi_check_skip_isa_align();
+ printk("\n** res test **\n"); + + res = request_mem_region(0xa0000000, 0x10000000, "ECAM PNP"); + printk("requested %pR\n", res); + if (!res) + return 0; + res->flags &= ~IORESOURCE_BUSY; + + cfg.start = 0xa0000000; + cfg.end = 0xafffffff; + cfg.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_BUSY; + cfg.name = "PCI ECAM"; + + conflict = request_resource_conflict(&iomem_resource, &cfg); + if (conflict) + printk("can't claim ECAM area %pR: conflict with %s %pR\n", + &cfg, conflict->name, conflict); + + printk("\n"); + return 0; } arch_initcall(pci_arch_init);