Hi Arnd > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: 23 November 2016 14:16 > To: Gabriele Paoloni > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; > benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; liviu.dudau@xxxxxxx; > Linuxarm; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; xuwei (O); Jason Gunthorpe; linux- > serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; minyard@xxxxxxx; will.deacon@xxxxxxx; John > Garry; zourongrong@xxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@go og > le.com; kantyzc@xxxxxxx; zhichang.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx; T homas Petazzoni; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yuanzhichang; olof@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on > Hip06 > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 5:03:11 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 4:18:07 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > > > > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@xxxxxxxx] > > > > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:53:08 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni > > > wrote: > > > > > For the ISA/LPC spaces there are only 4k of addresses, they > > > > > the bus addresses always overlap, but we can trivially > > > > > figure out the bus address from Linux I/O port number > > > > > by subtracting the start of the range. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that our LPC controller should specify a > > > > range property to map bus addresses into a cpu address range? > > > > > > No. There is not CPU address associated with it, because it's > > > not memory mapped. > > > > > > Instead, we need to associate a bus address with a logical > > > Linux port number, both in of_address_to_resource and > > > in inb()/outb(). > > > > I think this is effectively what we are doing so far with patch 2/3. > > The problem with this patch is that we are carving out a "forbidden" > > IO tokens range that goes from 0 to PCIBIOS_MIN_IO. > > > > I think that the proper solution would be to have the LPC driver to > > set the carveout threshold used in pci_register_io_range(), > > pci_pio_to_address(), pci_address_to_pio(), but this would impose > > a probe dependency on the LPC itself that should be probed before > > the PCI controller (or before any other devices calling these > > functions...) > > Why do you think the order matters? My point was that we should > be able to register any region of logical port numbers for any > bus here. Maybe I have not followed well so let's roll back to your previous comment... "we need to associate a bus address with a logical Linux port number, both in of_address_to_resource and in inb()/outb()" Actually of_address_to_resource() returns the port number to used in inb/outb(); inb() and outb() add the port number to PCI_IOBASE to rd/wr to the right virtual address. Our LPC cannot operate on the virtual address and it operates on a bus address range that for LPC is also equal to the cpu address range and goes from 0 to 0x1000. Now as I understand it is risky and not appropriate to reserve the logical port numbers from 0 to 0x1000 or to whatever other upper bound because existing systems may rely on these port numbers retrieved by __of_address_to_resource(). In this scenario I think the best thing to do would be in the probe function of the LPC driver: 1) call pci_register_io_range() passing [0, 0x1000] (that is the range for LPC) 2) retrieve the logical port numbers associated to the LPC range by calling pci_address_to_pio() for 0 and 0x1000 and assign them to extio_ops_node->start and extio_ops_node->end 3) implement the LPC accessors to operate on the logical ports associated to the LPC range (in practice in the accessors implementation we will call pci_pio_to_address to retrieve the cpu address to operate on) What do you think? Thanks Gab > > > > > > > > To be honest with you I would keep things simple for this > > > > > > LPC and introduce more complex reworks later if more devices > > > > > > need to be introduced. > > > > > > > > > > > > What if we stick on a single domain now where we introduce a > > > > > > reserved threshold for the IO space (say INDIRECT_MAX_IO). > > > > > > > > > > I said having a single domain is fine, but I still don't > > > > > like the idea of reserving low port numbers for this hack, > > > > > it would mean that the numbers change for everyone else. > > > > > > > > I don't get this much...I/O tokens that are passed to the I/O > > > > accessors are not fixed anyway and they vary depending on the > order > > > > of adding ranges to io_range_list...so I don't see a big issue > > > > with this... > > > > > > On machines with a legacy devices behind the PCI bridge, > > > there may still be a reason to have the low I/O port range > > > reserved for the primary bus, e.g. to get a VGA text console > > > to work. > > > > > > On powerpc, this is called the "primary" PCI host, i.e. the > > > only one that is allowed to have an ISA bridge. > > > > Yes but > > 1) isn't the PCI controller range property that defines how IO bus > address > > map into physical CPU addresses? > > Correct, but the DT knows nothing about logical port numbers in Linux. > > > 2) How can you guarantee that the cpu range associated with this > > IO bus range is the first to be registered in > pci_register_io_range()? > > ( i.e. are you saying that they are just relying on the fact that > it is the > > only IO range in the system and by chance the IO tokens and > corresponding > > bus addresses are the same? ) > > To clarify: the special properties of having the first 0x1000 logical > port numbers go to a particular physical bus are very obscure. I think > it's more important to not change the behavior for existing systems > that might rely on it than for new systems that have no such legacy. > > The ipmi and uart drivers in particular will get the port numbers > filled > in their platform device from the DT bus scanning, so they don't care > at all about having the same numeric value for port numbers on the bus > and logical numbers, but other drivers might rely on particular ports > to be mapped on a specific PCI host, especially when those drivers > are used only on systems that don't have more than one PCI domain. > > 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
