On Tuesday 25 February 2014, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 07:23:23PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 24 February 2014 18:59:19 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > + // BUS_ADDRESS(3) CPU_PHYSICAL(2) SIZE(2)
> > > + ranges = <0x1000000 0x0 0x01000000 0x0 0x01000000 0x0 0x00010000>,
> > > + <0x2000000 0x0 0x41000000 0x0 0x41000000 0x0 0x3f000000>;
> >
> > The I/O window looks very odd. Why would you start it at bus address
> > 0x01000000 rather than 0 like everyone else?
>
> I was just trying to change the example, since Jason didn't like me using
> CPU physical 0x0. There was also mention of maintaining a 1:1 mapping between
> bus address and CPU physical address in a previous version of this thread.
>
> Would you be happy with bus address 0x0 and CPU physical 0x01000000? (I
> don't have a feel for realism in my virtual environment :)
That would be a good example, yes. The bus address normally starts at
zero so you can have legacy ISA components like the UART you have on
there.
> > > +static int gen_pci_calc_io_offset(struct device *dev,
> > > + struct of_pci_range *range,
> > > + struct resource *res,
> > > + resource_size_t *offset)
> > > +{
> > > + static atomic_t wins = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> > > + int err, idx, max_win;
> > > + unsigned int io_offset;
> > > +
> > > + /* Ensure the CPU physical address is aligned to a 64K boundary */
> > > + range->size += range->cpu_addr & (SZ_64K - 1);
> > > + range->cpu_addr = round_down(range->cpu_addr, SZ_64K);
> > > + range->pci_addr = round_down(range->pci_addr, SZ_64K);
> > > +
> > > + if (range->size > SZ_64K)
> > > + return -E2BIG;
> >
> > What is the rounding for? Isn't it enough to round to PAGE_SIZE here?
> > Do you just want to make sure it works with 64K pages on ARM64? I guess
> > if you end up rounding for the mapping, you should later make sure
> > that you still only register the original resource.
>
> I need the alignment code so I can handle being passed a CPU physical
> address which isn't 64K aligned. In this case, pci_ioremap_io needs a 64K
> aligned address so that the __io macro does the right thing.
I still don't see why pci_ioremap_io needs 64K alignment. For all I can tell,
it just needs a page-aligned address.
> For example, I can tell kvmtool to place I/O space at CPU physical 0x16000,
> bus address 0x6000 (so ports 0x0-0x5fff are unavailable). In that case, I
> still need to map those lower ports for the __io macro to offset into the
> window correctly.
I don't think so. pci_ioremap_io will still try to map 64K of address space,
but you can map 0x16000-0x25fff to PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE. The io_offset in
that case will be negative (-0x6000).
> > > + max_win = IO_SPACE_LIMIT + 1 / SZ_64K;
> > > + idx = atomic_inc_return(&wins);
> > > + if (idx >= max_win)
> > > + return -ENOSPC;
> > > +
> > > + io_offset = (idx - 1) * SZ_64K;
> > > + err = pci_ioremap_io(io_offset, range->cpu_addr);
> >
> > As discussed the last time, calling it "io_offset" here
> > is extremely confusing. Don't do that, and call it "window"
> > or something appropriate instead.
>
> It's called io_offset because it *is* the thing I'm passing to
> pci_add_resource, as you point out later. I can change the name once we've
> sorted that out (more below).
Ok.
> > > + if (of_pci_parse_bus_range(np, &pci->cfg.bus_range))
> > > + pci->cfg.bus_range = (struct resource) {
> > > + .name = np->name,
> > > + .start = 0,
> > > + .end = 0xff,
> > > + .flags = IORESOURCE_BUS,
> > > + };
> >
> > I wonder if this should just be part of of_pci_parse_bus_range(),
> > or maybe an extended helper.
>
> Sure, although I want to get to the point where we're happy with this driver
> (from a technical perspective) before I try and split it up into helpers.
Right, makes sense.
> > > + /* Limit the bus-range to fit within reg */
> > > + bus_max = pci->cfg.bus_range.start +
> > > + (resource_size(&pci->cfg.res) >> pci->cfg.ops->bus_shift) - 1;
> > > + pci->cfg.bus_range.end = min_t(resource_size_t, pci->cfg.bus_range.end,
> > > + bus_max);
> >
> > I think I would instead print a warning and bail out here. This should
> > only happen for inconsistent DT properties.
>
> Not sure; that forces somebody to provide a bus-range property if their reg
> property doesn't describe the entire [E]CAM space. I think the truncation is
> useful in that case.
Right, good point.
> > > + err = request_resource(parent, res);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + goto out_release_res;
> > > +
> > > + pci_add_resource_offset(&sys->resources, res, offset);
> > > + }
> >
> > Wrong offset for the I/O space. Why not call pci_add_resource_offset()
> > directly from gen_pci_calc_io_offset where you have the right number?
>
> You're thinking of passing in io_offset - range->pci_addr, right?
Right.
> So, along
> with the earlier feedback, we get something along the lines of (I can move the
> resource registration in here, but this is just for discussion atm):
>
>
> static int gen_pci_calc_io_offset(struct device *dev,
> struct of_pci_range *range,
> struct resource *res,
> resource_size_t *offset)
> {
> static atomic_t wins = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> int err, idx, max_win;
> unsigned int window;
>
> max_win = (IO_SPACE_LIMIT + 1) / SZ_64K;
> idx = atomic_inc_return(&wins);
> if (idx >= max_win)
> return -ENOSPC;
>
> window = (idx - 1) * SZ_64K;
> err = pci_ioremap_io(window, round_down(range->cpu_addr, SZ_64K));
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> of_pci_range_to_resource(range, dev->of_node, res);
> res->start = window + range->pci_addr;
> res->end = res->start + range->size - 1;
> *offset = window - range->pci_addr;
> return 0;
> }
The offset is good now, but the start is not: res->start refers to
the linux I/O space and should just be 'window' here. Adding up
window and pci_addr makes no sense. Think of the case where you
have two host bridges, one using bus address 0x0-0xffff and the other
one using 0x10000-0x1ffff. You really want the first one to
have res->start=0 and the second one res->start=0x10000, and
using offset=0. Instead the second one get start=0x20000,
which is wrong in both CPU and bus space.
The round_down() also still gets you into trouble here, because you
don't adjust the start or the size.
> In that case, the PCI core (in pci_create_root_bus) does:
>
>
> /* Add initial resources to the bus */
> list_for_each_entry_safe(window, n, resources, list) {
> list_move_tail(&window->list, &bridge->windows);
> res = window->res;
> offset = window->offset;
> if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_BUS)
> pci_bus_insert_busn_res(b, bus, res->end);
> else
> pci_bus_add_resource(b, res, 0);
> if (offset) {
> if (resource_type(res) == IORESOURCE_IO)
> fmt = " (bus address [%#06llx-%#06llx])";
> else
> fmt = " (bus address [%#010llx-%#010llx])";
> snprintf(bus_addr, sizeof(bus_addr), fmt,
> (unsigned long long) (res->start - offset),
> (unsigned long long) (res->end - offset));
> } else
> bus_addr[0] = '\0';
> dev_info(&b->dev, "root bus resource %pR%s\n", res, bus_addr);
> }
>
>
> so here, we print out the `bus address' by computing res->start (window +
> range->pci_addr in my driver) - window->offset. That means that
> window->offset needs to equal window, otherwise the probing code gets in a
> pickle:
>
> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io 0x6000-0xffff] (bus address [0xc000-0x15fff])
This is the result of res->start being wrong.
> and then attempts to re-assign BARs with bogus addresses.
>
> If I do:
>
> *offset = window;
>
> then things work as expected (this is all referring back to the kvmtool example
> I mentioned earlier in this mail).
Yes, but only only because you have two bugs that cancel each other out
to some degree. It only works for the first bus though, as explained
above: if offset is >0, the Linux I/O port number that gets assigned
in the resource is no longer the one that maps to the one in your
virtual address space pointing to the right physical address.
> > > + bus_range = &pci->cfg.bus_range;
> > > + for (busn = bus_range->start; busn <= bus_range->end; ++busn) {
> > > + u32 idx = busn - bus_range->start;
> > > + u32 sz = 1 << pci->cfg.ops->bus_shift;
> > > +
> > > + pci->cfg.win[idx] = devm_ioremap(dev,
> > > + pci->cfg.res.start + busn * sz,
> > > + sz);
> > > + if (!pci->cfg.win[idx]) {
> > > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > > + goto out_unmap_cfg;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> >
> > I saw a trick in the tegra driver that maps the buses dynamically during
> > probe. While I mentioned that we can't dynamically map/unmap the config
> > space during access, it's probably fine to just map each bus at the first
> > access, since that will happen during the initial bus probe that is allowed
> > to sleep.
>
> I don't really see what that gains us if we have the bus-range property
> (which keeps the config accessors pretty clean).
The main difference is that you end up mapping only the buses that are used,
not all the ones that are allowed. It's quite typical to have a domain that
supports all 256 buses, but have all devices on the first bus. I suppose
this is always the case for kvmtool.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
