On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:26:14PM +0000, Okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Monday 21 December 2015, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > >> On 21.12.2015 13:10, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > >> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:56:39PM +0000, okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >> >> I have multiple root ports with the same IO port configuration in the > >> >> current ACPI table. > >> >> > >> >> Root port 0 = IO range 0x1000-0x10FFF > >> >> Root port 1 = IO range 0x1000-0x10FFF > >> >> Root port 2 = IO range 0x1000-0x10FFF > >> > > >> > It is fine. You end up mapping for each of those a 4k window of the > >> > virtual address space allocated to IO and that's what you will have in > >> > the kernel PCI resources (not in the HW BARs though). If that was a > >> problem > >> > it would be even for the current DT host controllers eg: > >> > > >> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm/apm-storm.dtsi > >> > > >> > it should not be (again I will let Arnd comment on this since he may > >> be > >> > aware of issues encountered on other arches/platforms). > >> > > >> > >> Root port 0 = IO range 0x1000-0x10FFF > >> Root port 1 = IO range 0x1000-0x10FFF > >> Root port 2 = IO range 0x1000-0x10FFF > >> > >> If above ranges are mapped into different CPU windows, then yes, it is > >> fine. > > > > Ideally, they should all be the same CPU address so we only have to map > > the window > > once, each device gets an address below 64K, and you can have legacy port > > numbers > > (below 4K) on any bus, which is required to make certain GPUs work. > > > > I haven't actually seen anyone do that on ARM though, every implementation > > so > > far has a separate mapping per host bridge, and we can cope with that too, > > and we can live with either overlapping bus addresses or unique bus > > addresses, > > any of them can be expressed by the PCI core in Linux, we just have to > > make sure > > that we correctly translate the firmware tables into our internal > > structures. > > > > Arnd > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > Thanks, I won't be touching the acpi tables then and I will assume the > hack had a problem. It was trying to remap the io range of the second root > port to the first port io address map. > > I was getting a warning from resource.c > > Btw, when I tested the io ranges before, kernel didn't accept anything > below 1k like 0. That is why my range starts at 1k. And that's what you should not do. ACPI tables have to have a 1:1 correspondence with HW resources and you must not change them to make the kernel (which version by the way, given that ARM64 ACPI PCI support is not in the mainline) work. I already said that: we must not interpret ACPI tables, we must define them according to specifications, and that's what everyone should follow to write FW. So, why does your PCI IO range starts at 1k ? Please define what you mean by "kernel didn't accept anything below 1k", I want to understand what you are referring to. Thanks, Lorenzo -- 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
