On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:55 -0800
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 22-02-14 16:20:37, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:27:01 -0800
> > Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Host bridge root port verification determines if the device ordering in
> > > an interleave set can be programmed through the host bridges and
> > > switches.
> > >
> > > The algorithm implemented here is based on the CXL Type 3 Memory Device
> > > Software Guide, chapter 2.13.15. The current version of the guide does
> > > not yet support x3 interleave configurations, and so that's not
> > > supported here either.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > > +static struct cxl_dport *get_rp(struct cxl_memdev *ep)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cxl_port *port, *parent_port = port = ep->port;
> > > + struct cxl_dport *dport;
> > > +
> > > + while (!is_cxl_root(port)) {
> > > + parent_port = to_cxl_port(port->dev.parent);
> > > + if (parent_port->depth == 1)
> > > + list_for_each_entry(dport, &parent_port->dports, list)
> > > + if (dport->dport == port->uport->parent->parent)
> > > + return dport;
> > > + port = parent_port;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + BUG();
> >
> > I know you mentioned you were reworking this patch set anyway, but
> > I thought I'd give some quick debugging related feedback.
> >
> > When running against a single switch in qemu (patches out once
> > things are actually working), I hit this BUG()
> > printing dev_name for the port->uport->parent->parent gives
> > pci0000:0c but the matches are sort against
> > 0000:0c:00.0 etc
> >
> > So looks like one too many levels of parent in this case at least.
>
> Hmm. This definitely looks dubious now that I see it again. Let me try to figure
> out how to rework it. I think it would be good to ask Dan as well. Much of the
> topology relationship works from bottom up, but top down is less easy.
> Previously I had used pci-isms to do this but Dan has been working on keeping
> the two domains isolated, which I agree is a good idea.
>
> >
> > The other bug I haven't chased down yet is that if we happen
> > to have downstream ports of the switch with duplicate ids
> > (far too easy to do in QEMU as port_num is an optional
> > parameter for switch DS ports) it's detected and the probe fails
> > - but then it tries again and we get an infinite loop of new
> > ports being created and failing to probe...
>
> Is this allowed by spec? We shouldn't infinite loop, but I can't imagine the
> driver could do anything saner than fail to probe for such a case.
It would be a hardware bug, however I suspect any failure to probe will
cause it rather that this specific case. I'll inject another failure
when I get back to this properly.
Jonathan
>
> > I'll get back this one once I have it working with
> > a valid switch config.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +}
