On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 09:02:48PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2024-01-16 5:18 pm, Sajid Dalvi wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:30 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 2024-01-11 4:21 am, Ajay Agarwal wrote: > > > > There can be platforms that do not use/have 32-bit DMA addresses > > > > but want to enumerate endpoints which support only 32-bit MSI > > > > address. The current implementation of 32-bit IOVA allocation can > > > > fail for such platforms, eventually leading to the probe failure. > > > > > > > > If there is a memory region reserved for the pci->dev, pick up > > > > the MSI data from this region. This can be used by the platforms > > > > described above. > > > > > > > > Else, if the memory region is not reserved, try to allocate a > > > > 32-bit IOVA. Additionally, if this allocation also fails, attempt > > > > a 64-bit allocation for probe to be successful. If the 64-bit MSI > > > > address is allocated, then the EPs supporting 32-bit MSI address > > > > will not work. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ajay Agarwal <ajayagarwal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changelog since v1: > > > > - Use reserved memory, if it exists, to setup the MSI data > > > > - Fallback to 64-bit IOVA allocation if 32-bit allocation fails > > > > > > > > .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 50 ++++++++++++++----- > > > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > index 7991f0e179b2..8c7c77b49ca8 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > @@ -331,6 +331,8 @@ static int dw_pcie_msi_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp > > *pp) > > > > u64 *msi_vaddr; > > > > int ret; > > > > u32 ctrl, num_ctrls; > > > > + struct device_node *np; > > > > + struct resource r; > > > > > > > > for (ctrl = 0; ctrl < MAX_MSI_CTRLS; ctrl++) > > > > pp->irq_mask[ctrl] = ~0; > > > > @@ -374,20 +376,44 @@ static int dw_pcie_msi_host_init(struct > > dw_pcie_rp *pp) > > > > * order not to miss MSI TLPs from those devices the MSI target > > > > * address has to be within the lowest 4GB. > > > > * > > > > - * Note until there is a better alternative found the reservation > > is > > > > - * done by allocating from the artificially limited DMA-coherent > > > > - * memory. > > > > + * Check if there is memory region reserved for this device. If > > yes, > > > > + * pick up the msi_data from this region. This will be helpful for > > > > + * platforms that do not use/have 32-bit DMA addresses but want > > to use > > > > + * endpoints which support only 32-bit MSI address. > > > > + * Else, if the memory region is not reserved, try to allocate a > > 32-bit > > > > + * IOVA. Additionally, if this allocation also fails, attempt a > > 64-bit > > > > + * allocation. If the 64-bit MSI address is allocated, then the > > EPs > > > > + * supporting 32-bit MSI address will not work. > > > > */ > > > > - ret = dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); > > > > - if (ret) > > > > - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to set DMA mask to 32-bit. Devices > > with only 32-bit MSI support may not work properly\n"); > > > > + np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "memory-region", 0); > > > > + if (np) { > > > > + ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &r); > > > > > > This is incorrect in several ways - reserved-memory nodes represent > > > actual system memory, so can't be used to reserve arbitrary PCI memory > > > space (which may be different if DMA offsets are involved); the whole > > > purpose of going through the DMA API is to ensure we get a unique *bus* > > > address. Obviously we don't want to reserve actual memory for something > > > that functionally doesn't need it, but conversely having a > > > reserved-memory region for an address which isn't memory would be > > > nonsensical. And even if this *were* a viable approach, you haven't > > > updated the DWC binding to allow it, nor defined a reserved-memory > > > binding for the node itself. > > > > > > If it was reasonable to put something in DT at all, then the logical > > > thing would be a property expressing an MSI address directly on the > > > controller node itself, but even that would be dictating software policy > > > rather than describing an aspect of the platform itself. Plus this is > > > far from the only driver with this concern, so it wouldn't make much > > > sense to hack just one binding without all the others as well. The rest > > > of the DT already describes everything an OS needs to know in order to > > > decide an MSI address to use, it's just a matter of making this > > > particular OS do a better job of putting it all together. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Robin. > > > > > > > Robin, > > Needed some clarification. > > It seems you are implying that the pcie device tree node should define a > > property for the MSI address within the PCIe address space. > > However, you also state that this would not be an ideal solution, and > > would prefer using existing device tree constructs. > > I am not sure what you mean by, " The rest of the DT already describes > > everything." > > Do you mean adding an "msi" reg to reg-names and defining the address > > in the reg list? > > No, I'm saying the closest this should come to DT at all is the possibility > of the low-level driver hard-coding a platform-specific value for I am assuming that you mean the platform driver (IOW, vendor driver) by the "low-level" driver? Please confirm. > pp->msi_data based on some platform-specific compatible, as Serge pointed to > on v1. > Does this look ok to you? The expectation is that the pp->msi_data will have to be populated by the platform driver if it wants to ensure the support for all kinds of endpoints. + if (pp->msi_data) + return 0; + ret = dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); if (ret) dev_warn(dev, "Failed to set DMA mask to 32-bit. Devices with only 32-bit MSI support may not work properly\n"); msi_vaddr = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, GFP_KERNEL); + if (!msi_vaddr) { + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to alloc 32-bit MSI data. Attempting 64-bit now\n"); + dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); + msi_vaddr = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, + GFP_KERNEL); + } + if (!msi_vaddr) { dev_err(dev, "Failed to alloc and map MSI data\n"); dw_pcie_free_msi(pp); > Otherwise, based on the system memory layout and dma-ranges of the > controller node we have enough information to figure out what PCI bus > address ranges can't collide with any valid DMA mapping of RAM, and thus > generate a suitable MSI address, but that really wants to be a generic > PCI-layer helper (which could also generically implement the various DMA API > tricks as a fallback if necessary). > > Thanks, > Robin.