On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:30:34AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:16:52PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Liviu Dudau <liviu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 03:45:05PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On May 29, 2014, at 8:41 PM, Liviu Dudau <liviu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 07:29:31PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Liviu Dudau <liviu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 03:51:28PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On May 29, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> If we have a PCI config space specified in something like a ranges
> > >> >>>>>> property we should treat it as memory type resource.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Config space should not be in ranges[1]. We have some cases that are,
> > >> >>>>> but we don't want new ones.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> For the cases we have I agree, however an ECAM based cfg seems completely legit.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> >>>>>> ---
> > >> >>>>>> drivers/of/address.c | 3 +++
> > >> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
> > >> >>>>>> index cb4242a..4e7ee59 100644
> > >> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/address.c
> > >> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/address.c
> > >> >>>>>> @@ -122,6 +122,9 @@ static unsigned int of_bus_pci_get_flags(const __be32 *addr)
> > >> >>>>>> u32 w = be32_to_cpup(addr);
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> switch((w >> 24) & 0x03) {
> > >> >>>>>> + case 0x00: /* cfg space */
> > >> >>>>>> + flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
> > >> >>>>>> + break;
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> How would you then distinguish actual memory ranges?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> One assumes you are still looking at pci_space as part of of_pci_range
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> That doesn't happen when you start scanning the bus. The existing code will
> > >> >>> use the IORESOURCE_MEM for allocating memory space for devices, which is
> > >> >>> not what you want. Did you test your patch on any PCI system? I'm pretty
> > >> >>> sure that with my patch series that tries to make a generic framework for
> > >> >>> host controllers this will fail.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> We really need a IORESOURCE_CFG flag for this space.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Maybe, but I'm not convinced yet. The existing IORESOURCE_TYPE_BITS
> > >> >> types are for things that are mutually exclusive address spaces. I
> > >> >> think this discussion is about ECAM, where the CPU side is definitely
> > >> >> in the same address space (IORESOURCE_MEM) as RAM, APICs, host bridge
> > >> >> apertures, device MMIO, etc. The ECAM area must appear in the
> > >> >> iomem_resource tree so we avoid it when allocating other areas.
> > >> >
> > >> > Agree, I'm only concerned that if this ECAM config space gets added to
> > >> > the list of pci_host_bridge windows it will be indistinguishable from
> > >> > IORESOURCE_MEM resources and pci_create_root_bus() will add it to the
> > >> > bus and allow devices present on that bus to be assigned addresses from
> > >> > that range. Which might not be what one wants for certain BARs.
> > >> >
> > >> > I've had an aborted attempt to parse ECAM ranges in one version of my
> > >> > series (granted, I was trying to hack the IORESOURCE_TYPE_BITS as well)
> > >> > and things got horribly wrong quickly. I could give this patch a go with
> > >> > my series tomorrow when I'm in the office and report back.
> > >>
> > >> We need to fix the parsing code to be smarter about this case.
> > >
> > > Wow, what a sweeping statement! Did you not understand that the issue is not
> > > the parsing code but the way the rest of the core code uses an IORESOURCE_MEM
> > > once you have parsed it into a resource structure and added it to the list
> > > of pci_host_bridge_windows?
> >
> > Why do you want to add the ECAM area to the list of host bridge
> > windows? My intent was that the windows tell the core what resources
> > are available for devices behind the bridge.
>
> I don't *want*, it is just that with my series that enhances Andrew's
> parses of the ranges they all come together as host bridge windows. And it is
> quite natural to put them all together when creating the root bus as the
> space needs to be added to the iomem_resource tree anyway and that will happen
> without special casing.
>
> But maybe I'm wrong with that idea. What I know for sure is that wherever you
> are going to pass the ECAM range converted to an IORESOURCE_MEM, the existing
> code will not be able to distinguish it from a normal IORESOURCE_MEM and it
> will treat it as a non-prefetcheable memory area. Is that how we want to treat
> the ECFG space or do we want to special case it?
OK, how about these patches? They should allow one to be able to distinguish
between standard IORESOURCE_MEM and ECFG one.
Best regards,
Liviu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
