> From: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:19:57 -0500 > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 11:36 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > Apologies for the delay, I somehow misplaced this email... > > > > On Mon, 02 Aug 2021 17:10:39 +0100, > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 3:31 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:18:48 +0100, > > > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:32:00AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > > From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > The Apple PCIe host controller is a PCIe host controller with > > > > > > multiple root ports present in Apple ARM SoC platforms, including > > > > > > various iPhone and iPad devices and the "Apple Silicon" Macs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/pci/apple,pcie.yaml | 166 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > > > > > 2 files changed, 167 insertions(+) > > > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/apple,pcie.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/apple,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/apple,pcie.yaml > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > index 000000000000..bfcbdee79c64 > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/apple,pcie.yaml > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > > +--- > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pci/apple,pcie.yaml# > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > + > > > > > > +title: Apple PCIe host controller > > > > > > + > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > + - Mark Kettenis <kettenis@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > + > > > > > > +description: | > > > > > > + The Apple PCIe host controller is a PCIe host controller with > > > > > > + multiple root ports present in Apple ARM SoC platforms, including > > > > > > + various iPhone and iPad devices and the "Apple Silicon" Macs. > > > > > > + The controller incorporates Synopsys DesigWare PCIe logic to > > > > > > + implements its root ports. But the ATU found on most DesignWare > > > > > > + PCIe host bridges is absent. > > > > > > > > > > blank line > > > > > > > > > > > + All root ports share a single ECAM space, but separate GPIOs are > > > > > > + used to take the PCI devices on those ports out of reset. Therefore > > > > > > + the standard "reset-gpio" and "max-link-speed" properties appear on > > > > > > > > > > reset-gpios > > > > > > > > > > > + the child nodes that represent the PCI bridges that correspond to > > > > > > + the individual root ports. > > > > > > > > > > blank line > > > > > > > > > > > + MSIs are handled by the PCIe controller and translated into regular > > > > > > + interrupts. A range of 32 MSIs is provided. These 32 MSIs can be > > > > > > + distributed over the root ports as the OS sees fit by programming > > > > > > + the PCIe controller's port registers. > > > > > > + > > > > > > +allOf: > > > > > > + - $ref: /schemas/pci/pci-bus.yaml# > > > > > > + > > > > > > +properties: > > > > > > + compatible: > > > > > > + items: > > > > > > + - const: apple,t8103-pcie > > > > > > + - const: apple,pcie > > > > > > + > > > > > > + reg: > > > > > > + minItems: 3 > > > > > > + maxItems: 5 > > > > > > + > > > > > > + reg-names: > > > > > > + minItems: 3 > > > > > > + maxItems: 5 > > > > > > + items: > > > > > > + - const: config > > > > > > + - const: rc > > > > > > + - const: port0 > > > > > > + - const: port1 > > > > > > + - const: port2 > > > > > > + > > > > > > + ranges: > > > > > > + minItems: 2 > > > > > > + maxItems: 2 > > > > > > + > > > > > > + interrupts: > > > > > > + description: > > > > > > + Interrupt specifiers, one for each root port. > > > > > > + minItems: 1 > > > > > > + maxItems: 3 > > > > > > + > > > > > > + msi-controller: true > > > > > > + msi-parent: true > > > > > > + > > > > > > + msi-ranges: > > > > > > + description: > > > > > > + A list of pairs <intid span>, where "intid" is the first > > > > > > + interrupt number that can be used as an MSI, and "span" the size > > > > > > + of that range. > > > > > > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-matrix > > > > > > + items: > > > > > > + minItems: 2 > > > > > > + maxItems: 2 > > > > > > > > > > I still have issues I raised on v1 with this property. It's genericish > > > > > looking, but not generic. 'intid' as a single cell can't specify any > > > > > parent interrupt such as a GIC which uses 3 cells. You could put in all > > > > > the cells, but you'd still be assuming which cell you can increment. > > > > > > > > The GIC bindings already use similar abstractions, see what we do for > > > > both GICv2m and GICv3 MBIs. Other MSI controllers use similar > > > > properties (alpine and loongson, for example). > > > > > > That's the problem. Everyone making up their own crap. > > > > And that crap gets approved: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200512205704.GA10412@bogus/ > > > > I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but it seems that your > > position on this very subject has changed recently. > > Not really, I think it's not the first time we've discussed this. But > as I see things over and over, my tolerance for another instance > without solving the problem for everyone diminishes. And what other > leverage do I have? > > Additionally, how long we have to support something comes into play. I > have no idea for a Loongson MSI controller. I have a better idea on an > Apple product... > > > > > > I think you should just list all these under 'interrupts' using > > > > > interrupt-names to make your life easier: > > > > > > > > > > interrupt-names: > > > > > items: > > > > > - const: port0 > > > > > - const: port1 > > > > > - const: port2 > > > > > - const: msi0 > > > > > - const: msi1 > > > > > - const: msi2 > > > > > - const: msi3 > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, it's kind of verbose, but if the h/w block handles N interrupts, > > > > > you should list N interrupts. The worst case for the above is N entries > > > > > too if not contiguous. > > > > > > > > And that's where I beg to differ, again. > > > > > > > > Specifying interrupts like this gives the false impression that these > > > > interrupts are generated by the device that owns them (the RC). Which > > > > for MSIs is not the case. > > > > > > It's no different than an interrupt controller node having an > > > interrupts property. The source is downstream and the interrupt > > > controller is combining/translating the interrupts. > > > > > > The physical interrupt signals are connected to and originating in > > > this block. > > > > Oh, I also object to this, for the same reasons. The only case where > > it makes sense IMHO is when the interrupt controller is a multiplexer. > > So we've had the same kind of property for interrupt multiplexers. I'm > fine if you think an 'MSI to interrupts mapping property' should be > named something else. > > > > That sounds like perfectly 'describing the h/w' to me. > > > > I guess we have a different view of about these things. At the end of > > the day, I don't care enough as long as we can expose a range of > > interrupts one way or another. > > I don't really either. I just don't want 10 ways AND another... > > > > > This is not only verbose, this is > > > > semantically dubious. And what should we do when the number of > > > > possible interrupt is ridiculously large, as it is for the GICv3 ITS? > > > > > > I don't disagree with the verbose part. But that's not really an issue > > > in this case. > > > > > > > I wish we had a standard way to express these constraints. Until we > > > > do, I don't think enumerating individual interrupts is a practical > > > > thing to do, nor that it actually represents the topology of the > > > > system. > > > > > > The only way a standard way will happen is to stop accepting the > > > custom properties. > > > > > > All the custom properties suffer from knowledge of what the parent > > > interrupt controller is. To fix that, I think we need something like > > > this: > > > > > > msi-ranges = <intspec base>, <intspec step>, <intspec end>; > > > > > > 'intspec' is defined by the parent interrupt-controller cells. step is > > > the value to add. And end is what to match on to stop aka the last > > > interrupt in the range. For example, if the GIC is the parent, we'd > > > have something like this: > > > > > > <GIC_SPI 123 0>, <0 1 0>, <GIC_SPI 124 0> > > > > > > Does this apply to cases other than MSI? I think so as don't we have > > > the same type of properties with the low power mode shadow interrupt > > > controllers? So 'interrupt-ranges'? > > > > This would work, though the increment seems a bit over-engineered. You > > also may need this property to accept multiple ranges. > > Yes, certainly. Worst case is a map. > > > > It looks to me like there's an assumption in the kernel that an MSI > > > controller has a linear range of parent interrupts? Is that correct > > > and something that's guaranteed? That assumption leaks into the > > > existing bindings. > > > > Depends on how the controller works. In general, the range maps to the > > MultiMSI requirements where the message is an offset from the base of > > the interrupt range. So you generally end-up with ranges of at least > > 32 contiguous MSIs. Anything under that is sub-par and probably not > > worth supporting. > > Maybe just this is enough: > msi-ranges = <intspec base>, <length>, <intspec base>, <length>, ... > > While I say 'length' here, that's really up to the interrupt parent to > interpret the intspec cells. So for the Apple PCIe controller we'd have: msi-ranges = <AIC_IRQ 704 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING 32>; That would work just fine. Should this be documented in the apple,pcie binding, or somewhere more generic? > > Of course, the controller may have some mapping facilities, which > > makes things more... interesting. > > > > > It's fine for the kernel to assume that until there's a case that's > > > not linear, but a common binding needs to be able handle a > > > non-linear case. > > > > Fair enough. I can probably work with Mark to upgrade the binding and > > the M1 PCIe code. Could you come up with a more formalised proposal? > > Not my itch. > > Rob >
