On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:17:44PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:09:25PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: [...] > > None of these platforms can be fixed entirely in software, and given > > that we will not be adding quirks for new broken hardware, we should > > ask ourselves whether having two versions of a quirk, i.e., one for > > broken hardware + currently shipping firmware, and one for the same > > broken hardware with fixed firmware is really an improvement over what > > has been proposed here. > > We're talking about two completely different types of quirks: > > 1) MCFG quirks to use memory-mapped config space that doesn't quite > conform to the ECAM model in the PCIe spec, and > > 2) Some yet-to-be-determined method to describe address space > consumed by a bridge. > > The first two patches of this series are a nice implementation for 1). > The third patch (ThunderX-specific) is one possibility for 2), but I > don't like it because there's no way for generic software like the > ACPI core to discover these resources. Ok, so basically this means that to implement (2) we need to assign some sort of _HID to these quirky PCI bridges (so that we know what device they represent and we can retrieve their _CRS). I take from this discussion that the goal is to make sure that all non-config resources have to be declared through _CRS device objects, which is fine but that requires a FW update (unless we can fabricate ACPI devices and corresponding _CRS in the kernel whenever we match a given MCFG table signature). We discussed this already and I think we should make a decision: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-March/414722.html > > > I'd like to step back and come up with some understanding of how > > > non-broken firmware *should* deal with this issue. Then, if we *do* > > > work around this particular broken firmware in the kernel, it would be > > > nice to do it in a way that fits in with that understanding. > > > > > > For example, if a companion ACPI device is the preferred solution, an > > > ACPI quirk could fabricate a device with the required resources. That > > > would address the problem closer to the source and make it more likely > > > that the rest of the system will work correctly: /proc/iomem could > > > make sense, things that look at _CRS generically would work (e.g, > > > /sys/, an admittedly hypothetical "lsacpi", etc.) > > > > > > Hard-coding stuff in drivers is a point solution that doesn't provide > > > any guidance for future platforms and makes it likely that the hack > > > will get copied into even more drivers. > > > > > > > OK, I see. But the guidance for future platforms should be 'do not > > rely on quirks', and what I am arguing here is that the more we polish > > up this code and make it clean and reusable, the more likely it is > > that will end up getting abused by new broken hardware that we set out > > to reject entirely in the first place. > > > > So of course, if the quirk involves claiming resources, let's make > > sure that this occurs in the cleanest and most compliant way possible. > > But any factoring/reuse concerns other than for the current crop of > > broken hardware should be avoided imo. > > If future hardware is completely ECAM-compliant and we don't need any > more MCFG quirks, that would be great. Yes. > But we'll still need to describe that memory-mapped config space > somewhere. If that's done with PNP0C02 or similar devices (as is done > on my x86 laptop), we'd be all set. I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you referring to MCFG regions reported as PNP0c02 resources through its _CRS ? IIUC PNP0C02 is a reservation mechanism, but it does not help us associate its _CRS to a specific PCI host bridge instance, right ? > If we need to work around firmware in the field that doesn't do that, > one possibility is a PNP quirk along the lines of > quirk_amd_mmconfig_area(). You mean matching PNP0C01/PNP0c02 and create a resource (that has to hardcoded in a static array in the kernel anyway, there is no way to retrieve it otherwise) in the corresponding PNP quirk handler ? And it is not a given we can match against PNP0c01/PNP0c02. So it looks like the only solution is allocating an _HID for each host bridge that is not ECAM compliant to add resources to its _CRS (unless the MCFG quirk does not need any additional data/resource, eg "use different set of PCI accessorsi 32-bit vs byte-access"). For FW that is immutable I really do not see what we can do apart from hardcoding the non-config resources (consumed by a bridge), somehow. 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
