On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:05:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: >> 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). > > All resources consumed by ACPI devices should be declared through > _CRS. If you want to fabricate ACPI devices or _CRS via kernel > quirks, that's fine with me. This could be triggered via MCFG > signature, DMI info, host bridge _HID, etc. > >> 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 ? > > Yes. PCI Firmware Spec r3.0, Table 4-2, note 2 says address ranges > reported via MCFG or _CBA should be reserved by _CRS of a PNP0C02 > device. > >> IIUC PNP0C02 is a reservation mechanism, but it does not help us >> associate its _CRS to a specific PCI host bridge instance, right ? > > Gab proposed a hierarchy that *would* associate a PNP0C02 device with > a PCI bridge: > > Device (PCI1) { > Name (_HID, "HISI0080") // PCI Express Root Bridge > Name (_CID, "PNP0A03") // Compatible PCI Root Bridge > Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) { // Root complex resources (windows) } > Device (RES0) { > Name (_HID, "HISI0081") // HiSi PCIe RC config base address > Name (_CID, "PNP0C02") // Motherboard reserved resource > Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { ... } > } > } > > That's a possibility. The PCI Firmware Spec suggests putting RES0 at > the root (under \_SB), but I don't know why. > > Putting it at the root means we couldn't generically associate it with > a bridge, although I could imagine something like this: > > Device (RES1) { > Name (_HID, "HISI0081") // HiSi PCIe RC config base address > Name (_CID, "PNP0C02") // Motherboard reserved resource > Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { ... } > Method (BRDG) { "PCI1" } // hand-wavy ASL > } > Device (PCI1) { > Name (_HID, "HISI0080") // PCI Express Root Bridge > Name (_CID, "PNP0A03") // Compatible PCI Root Bridge > Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) { // Root complex resources (windows) } > } > > Where you could search PNP0C02 devices for a cookie that matched the > host bridge. > >> > 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 ? > > Right. On some hardware we can read the resource out of a > device-specific register, as we do in quirk_intel_mch(). But if > that's not possible, it would have to be hard-coded. > >> 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"). > > It doesn't matter whether it's ECAM-compliant or not. Any > memory-mapped config space should be reported via some device's _CRS. > > The existing x86 practice is to use PNP0C02 devices for this purpose, > and I think we should just follow that practice. > >> 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. > > Right. Well, I assume you mean we should hard-code "non-window > resources consumed directly by a bridge". If firmware in the field is > broken, we should work around it, and that may mean hard-coding some > resources. > > My point is that the hard-coding should not be buried in a driver > where it's invisible to the rest of the kernel. If we hard-code it in > a quirk that adds _CRS entries, then the kernel will work just like it > would if the firmware had been correct in the first place. The > resource will appear in /sys/devices/pnp*/*/resources and /proc/iomem, > and if we ever used _SRS to assign or move ACPI devices, we would know > to avoid the bridge resource. Hi Bjorn, Are you suggesting to add code similar to functions in linux/drivers/pnp/quirks.c to declare/attach the additional resource that the host need to have when the resource is not in MCFG table? > > Bjorn Regards, Duc Dang. -- 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
