On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:17:31 -0800
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 21-11-22 15:02:27, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:02:31 -0800
> > Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > The original driver implementation used the doorbell timeout for the
> > > Mailbox Interface Ready bit to piggy back off of, since the latter
> > > doesn't have a defined timeout. This functionality, introduced in
> > > 8adaf747c9f0 ("cxl/mem: Find device capabilities"), can now be improved
> > > since a timeout has been defined with an ECN to the 2.0 spec.
> > >
> > > While devices implemented prior to the ECN could have an arbitrarily
> > > long wait and still be within spec, the max ECN value (256s) is chosen
> > > as the default for all devices. All vendors in the consortium agreed to
> > > this amount and so it is reasonable to assume no devices made will
> > > exceed this amount.
> >
> > Optimistic :)
> >
>
> Reasonable to assume is certainly not the same as "in reality". I can soften
> this wording.
>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > This patch did not exist in RFCv2
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cxl/pci.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > > index 6c8d09fb3a17..2cef9fec8599 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c
> > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > > /* Copyright(c) 2020 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. */
> > > #include <linux/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > > #include <linux/sizes.h>
> > > #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > #include <linux/list.h>
> > > @@ -298,6 +299,34 @@ static int cxl_pci_mbox_send(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd *c
> > > static int cxl_pci_setup_mailbox(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds)
> > > {
> > > const int cap = readl(cxlds->regs.mbox + CXLDEV_MBOX_CAPS_OFFSET);
> > > + unsigned long timeout;
> > > + u64 md_status;
> > > + int rc;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * CXL 2.0 ECN "Add Mailbox Ready Time" defines a capability field to
> > > + * dictate how long to wait for the mailbox to become ready. For
> > > + * simplicity, and to handle devices that might have been implemented
> >
> > I'm not keen on the 'for simplicity' argument here. If the device is advertising
> > a lower value, then that is what we should use. It's fine to wait the max time
> > if nothing is specified. It'll cost us a few lines of code at most unless
> > I am missing something...
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
> Let me pose it a different way, if a device advertises 1s, but for whatever
> takes 4s to come up, should we penalize it over the device advertising 256s?
Yes, because it is buggy. A compliance test should have failed on this anyway.
> The
> way this field is defined in the spec would [IMHO] lead vendors to simply put
> the max field in there to game the driver, so why not start off with just
> insisting they don't?
Given reading this value and getting a big number gives the implication that
the device is meant to be really slow to initialize, I'd expect that to push
vendors a little in the directly of putting realistic values in).
Maybe we should print the value in the log to make them look silly ;)
Jonathan
>
> > > + * prior to the ECN, wait the max amount of time no matter what the
> > > + * device says.
> > > + */
> > > + timeout = jiffies + 256 * HZ;
> > > +
> > > + rc = check_device_status(cxlds);
> > > + if (rc)
> > > + return rc;
> > > +
> > > + do {
> > > + md_status = readq(cxlds->regs.memdev + CXLMDEV_STATUS_OFFSET);
> > > + if (md_status & CXLMDEV_MBOX_IF_READY)
> > > + break;
> > > + if (msleep_interruptible(100))
> > > + break;
> > > + } while (!time_after(jiffies, timeout));
> > > +
> > > + /* It's assumed that once the interface is ready, it will remain ready. */
> > > + if (!(md_status & CXLMDEV_MBOX_IF_READY))
> > > + return -EIO;
> > >
> > > cxlds->mbox_send = cxl_pci_mbox_send;
> > > cxlds->payload_size =
> >
