On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 03:16:01PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
Hi Lorenzo
-----Original Message----- From: Lorenzo Pieralisi [mailto:lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com] Sent: 23 May 2016 11:57 To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; Jon Masters; Tomasz Nowicki; helgaas@kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de; will.deacon@arm.com; catalin.marinas@arm.com; rafael@kernel.org; hanjun.guo@linaro.org; okaya@codeaurora.org; jchandra@broadcom.com; linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org; linux- pci@vger.kernel.org; dhdang@apm.com; Liviu.Dudau@arm.com; ddaney@caviumnetworks.com; jeremy.linton@arm.com; linux- kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com; Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com; msalter@redhat.com; Wangyijing; mw@semihalf.com; andrea.gallo@linaro.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 00/11] Support for generic ACPI based PCI host controller
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On 20 May 2016 at 10:40, Gabriele Paoloni
gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com wrote:
Hi Ard
-----Original Message----- From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org]
[...]
Is the PCIe root complex so special that you cannot simply
describe an
implementation that is not PNP0408 compatible as something else,
under
its own unique HID? If everybody is onboard with using ACPI, how
is
this any different from describing other parts of the platform topology? Even if the SBSA mandates generic PCI, they already
deviated
from that when they built the hardware, so pretending that it is a PNP0408 with quirks really does not buy us anything.
From my understanding we want to avoid this as this would allow
each
vendor to come up with his own code and it would be much more
effort
for the PCI maintainer to rework the PCI framework to accommodate
X86
and "all" ARM64 Host Controllers...
I guess this approach is too risky and we want to avoid this.
Through
standardization we can more easily maintain the code and scale it
to
multiple SoCs...
So this is my understanding; maybe Jon, Tomasz or Lorenzo can give a bit more explanation...
OK, so that boils down to recommending to vendors to represent known non-compliant hardware as compliant, just so that we don't have to change the code to support additional flavors of ECAM ? It's fine to be pragmatic, but that sucks.
We keep confusing the x86 case with the ARM case here: for x86, they needed to deal with broken hardware *after* the fact, and all they could do is find /some/ distinguishing feature in order to guess
which
exact hardware they might be running on. For arm64, it is the
opposite
case. We are currently in a position where we can demand vendors to comply with the standards they endorsed themselves, and (ab)using
ACPI
- DMI as a de facto platform description rather than plain ACPI makes
me think the DT crowd were actually right from the beginning. It *directly* violates the standardization principle, since it requires
a
priori knowledge inside the OS that a certain 'generic' device must
be
driven in a special way.
So can anyone comment on the feasibility of adding support for
devices
with vendor specific HIDs (and no generic CIDs) to the current ACPI ECAM driver in Linux?
I don't think of ECAM support itself as a "driver". It's just a service available to drivers, similar to OF resource parsing.
Per PCI Firmware r3.2, sec 4.1.5, "PNP0A03" means a PCI/PCI-X/PCIe host bridge. "PNP0A08" means a PCI-X Mode 2 or PCIe bridge that supports extended config space. It doesn't specify how we access that config space, so I think hardware with non-standard ECAM should still have PNP0A03 and PNP0A08 in _CID or _HID.
"ECAM" as used in the specs (PCIe r3.0, sec 7.2.2, and PCI Firmware r3.2, sec 4.1) means:
(a) a memory-mapped model for config space access, and (b) a specific mapping of address bits to bus/device/function/ register
MCFG and _CBA assume both (a) and (b), so I think a device with non-standard ECAM mappings should not be described in MCFG or _CBA.
If a bridge has ECAM with non-standard mappings, I think either a vendor-specific _HID or a device-specific method, e.g., _DSM, could communicate that.
Jon, I agree that we should avoid describing non-standardized hardware in Linux-specific ways. Is there a mechanism in use already? How does Windows handle this? DMI is a poor long-term solution because it requires ongoing maintenance for new platforms, but I think it's OK for getting started with platforms already shipping.
A _DSM has the advantage that once it is defined and supported, OEMs can ship new platforms without requiring a new quirk or a new _HID to be added to a driver.
There would still be the problem of config access before the namespace is available, i.e., the MCFG use case. I don't know how important that is. Defining an MCFG extension seems like the most obvious solution.
If we only expect a few non-standard devices, maybe it's enough to have DMI quirks to statically set up ECAM and just live with the inconvenience of requiring a kernel change for every new non-standard device.
Host bridges in ACPI are handled through PNP0A08/PNP0A03 ids, and most of the arch specific code is handled in the respective arch directories (X86 and IA64, even though IA64 does not rely on ECAM/MCFG for PCI ops), it is not a driver per-se, PNP0A08/PNP0A03 are detected through ACPI scan handlers and the respective arch code (ie pci_acpi_scan_root) sets-up resources AND config space on an arch specific basis.
X86 deals with that with code in arch/x86 that sets-up the pci_raw_ops on a platform specific basis (and it is not nice, but it works because as you all know the number of platforms in X86 world is contained).
Will this happen for ARM64 in arch/arm64 based on vendor specific HIDs ?
No.
So given the current state of play (we were requested to move the arch/arm64 specific ACPI PCI bits to arch/arm64), we would end up with arch/arm64 code requiring code in /drivers to set-up pci_ops in a platform specific way, it is horrible, if feasible at all.
The only way this can be implemented is by pretending that the ACPI/PCI arch/arm64 implementation is generic code (that's what this series does), move it to /drivers (where it is in this series), and implement _DSD vendor specific bindings (per HID) to set-up the pci operations; whether this solution should go upstream, given that it is just a short-term solution for early platforms bugs, it is another story and my personal answer is no.
It seems like there should be a way to look for a _DSM before we call acpi_pci_root_get_mcfg_addr() to look for _CBA.
Currently we call acpi_pci_root_get_mcfg_addr() (to read _CBA) from the generic acpi_pci_root_add(), but the result (root->mcfg_addr) is only used in x86-specific code. I think it would be nicer if the lookup and the use were together. Then it would be easier to override it because the mapping assumptions would all be in one place.
I think it shouldn't be too bad to move quirk handling mechanism to arch/arm64. Effectively we would not move platform specific code into arch/arm64 but just the mechanism checking if there is any quirk that is defined.
i.e.:
extern struct pci_cfg_fixup __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups[]; extern struct pci_cfg_fixup __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups[];
static struct pci_ecam_ops *pci_acpi_get_ops(struct acpi_pci_root *root) { int bus_num = root->secondary.start; int domain = root->segment; struct pci_cfg_fixup *f;
/* * Match against platform specific quirks and return corresponding * CAM ops. * * First match against PCI topology <domain:bus> then use DMI or * custom match handler. */ for (f = __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f < __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f++) { if ((f->domain == domain || f->domain == PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY) && (f->bus_num == bus_num || f->bus_num == PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY) && (f->system ? dmi_check_system(f->system) : 1) && (f->match ? f->match(f, root) : 1)) return f->ops; } /* No quirks, use ECAM */ return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;}
Such quirks will be defined anyway in drivers/pci/host/ in the vendor specific quirk implementations.
e.g. in HiSilicon case we would have
DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(NULL, hisi_pcie_match, &hisi_pcie_ecam_ops, PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY, PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY);
in "drivers/pci/host/pcie-hisi-acpi.c "
Thanks
Gab
Sorry Gab, I guess I was really responding to earlier messages :)
I don't really have much to say here, except that it doesn't seem right to have an MCFG that describes a non-standard ECAM mapping. I suppose there's already firmware in the field that does that, though?
Bjorn