On 2015/3/24 10:42, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2015/3/24 0:48, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 03:22:14PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>> Commit 63f1789ec716("Ignore resources consumed by host bridge itself")
>>>> tries to ignore resources consumed by PCI host bridge itself by
>>>> checking IORESOURCE_WINDOW flag, which causes regression on some
>>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> "Do. Or do not. There is no try."
>>> [http://www.starwars.com/video/do-or-do-not]
>>>
>>> That commit doesn't *try* to do something. It *does* something. Just
>>> explain what it does and what's wrong with what it does.
>>>
>>>> For example, PC Engines APU.1C platform defines PCI MMIO resources with
>>>> ACPI Memory32Fixed operator as below:
>>>> Name (CRES, ResourceTemplate ()
>>>> {
>>>> ...
>>>> WordIO (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode,
>>>> 0x0000, // Granularity
>>>> 0x0D00, // Range Minimum
>>>> 0xFFFF, // Range Maximum
>>>> 0x0000, // Translation Offset
>>>> 0xF300, // Length
>>>> ,, , TypeStatic)
>>>> Memory32Fixed (ReadOnly,
>>>> 0x000A0000, // Address Base
>>>> 0x00020000, // Address Length
>>>> )
>>>> Memory32Fixed (ReadOnly,
>>>> 0x00000000, // Address Base
>>>> 0x00000000, // Address Length
>>>> _Y00)
>>>> })
>>>>
>>>> Memory32Fixed operator doesn't support concept of "producer/consumer"
>>>> and it will be treated as "consumer" by the ACPI resource parsing
>>>> interface, thus cause regression. So the fix is only to check
>>>> "producer/consumer" flag for resources having "producer/consumer" flag.
>>>
>>> Apparently the problem is with the Memory32Fixed resources above; it sounds
>>> like we ignore them after 63f1789ec716? I don't quite understand how this
>>> fix works. acpi_dev_filter_resource_type() has cases for both
>>> ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32 and ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESSxx, but
>>> this patch only touches the latter, not the
>>> ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32 case.
>> The idea is:
>> 1) caller specifies IORESOURCE_WINDOW to query resources provided
>> by the device, otherwise it's querying resources consumed by
>> the device.
>> 2) For resource descriptors having producer/consumer flag, such as
>> ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESSxx, we check the producer/consumer flag.
>> 3) For resource descriptors not having producer/consumer flag, such
>> as ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32, we skip checking the
>> producer/consumer flag.
>
> I figured out that much by reading the code. But I think the code is
> very hard to read, and I still don't really understand how it works.
>
> Before this fix, we ignore Memory32Fixed resources. After this fix,
> we use Memory32Fixed as a window. I think that's an incorrect
> interpretation of Memory32Fixed.
Hi Bjorn,
I think it's illegal to use Memory32Fixed for PCI host
bridge resource window too. The fix is to solve the regression
by relaxing constraints, but that may not be the right solution.
How about waiting for a while to see whether there are more
bug reports related to this. If only limited platform affected,
we could treat it as BIOS bugs and use quirk to handle it.
Otherwise we may need to relax the constraint.
Thanks!
Gerry
>
>>> Is it even legal to use Memory32Fixed for a bridge window? Is this just a
>>> BIOS bug? If so, how do we know this workaround won't break something
>>> else for BIOSes that use Memory32Fixed correctly?
>>>
>>> Should this be a BIOS-specific quirk?
>> I have searched ACPI spec 5.0 and PCI firmware spec 3.1, but haven't
>> found any statement tells whether Memory32Fixed could be used for
>> PCI host bridge resources yet. So to be honest, I'm not sure it's
>> legal or illegal:(
>
> I think it could certainly be used for host bridge register space, if
> the bridge supplied a _HID that a device-specific driver could claim.
> But I think a generic driver like pci_root.c has to rely on the
> producer/consumer bit to differentiate windows ("produced" space) from
> device registers ("consumed" space), so I think Memory32Fixed for a
> window makes no sense.
>
>>> It'd be nice to have Bernhard's logs archived somewhere and referenced
>>> here. This seems like a dusty corner of the code that might have to be
>>> revisited someday.
>> I have archived the acpidump at:
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94221
>
> Yes, I noticed that. Unfortunately, there is no link to the bugzilla
> in your changelog.
>
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/acpi.c
>>>> @@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ static void probe_pci_root_info(struct pci_root_info *info,
>>>> info->bridge = device;
>>>> ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, list,
>>>> acpi_dev_filter_resource_type_cb,
>>>> - (void *)(IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM));
>>>> + (void *)(IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_WINDOW));
>>>
>>> Tangent: I'm disappointed that ia64 didn't get reworked to track the x86
>>> code here. Is that coming soon?
>> I have checked IA64 when changing the resource parsing interface,
>> but there are obstacle to convert it to the new interface.
>> Will have another try.
>
> Please do. I think it's extremely important to keep these arches
> aligned. And arm64, when similar code gets added to it. Most of the
> code in pci_acpi_scan_root() is actually arch-independent, and it
> should be pulled up into pci_root.c someday.
>
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
