On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 28 September 2017 at 16:51, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 26 September 2017 at 10:32, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> [+cc Will]
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 07:04:36PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> Some implementations of the Synopsys Designware PCIe controller implement
> >>> a so-called ECAM shift mode, which allows a static memory window to be
> >>> configured that covers the configuration space of the entire bus range.
> >>>
> >>> If the firmware performs all the low level configuration that is required
> >>> to expose this controller in a fully ECAM compatible manner, we can
> >>> simply describe it as "pci-host-ecam-generic" and be done with it.
> >>> However, it appears that in some cases (one of which is the Armada 80x0),
> >>> the IP is synthesized with an ATU window size that does not allow the
> >>> first bus to be mapped in a way that prevents the device on the
> >>> downstream port from appearing more than once.
> >>>
> >>> So implement a driver that relies on the firmware to perform all low
> >>> level initialization, and drives the controller in ECAM mode, but
> >>> overrides the config space accessors to take the above quirk into
> >>> account.
> >>>
> >>> Note that, unlike most drivers for this IP, this driver does not expose
> >>> a fake bridge device at B/D/F 00:00.0. There is no point in doing so,
> >>> given that this is not a true bridge, and does not require any windows
> >>> to be configured in order for the downstream device to operate correctly.
> >>> Omitting it also prevents the PCI resource allocation routines from
> >>> handing out BAR space to it unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> This is a tangent, but does this mean the other drivers do not need to
> >> expose a fake 00:00.0 device either?
> >>
> >
> > To be honest, I am not so sure anymore. I am seeing some issues in
> > ASPM code making the assumption that any device which is not a root
> > port has a parent. If this is mandated by the spec, I guess there
> > isn't a whole lot we can do except expose a fake root port on b/d/f
> > 0/0/0. This used to work fine, though, and I have to confirm whether
> > the issues I am seeing currently are due to different hardware or
> > changes in the software.
> >
>
> OK, so the issue was new because I hadn't tried using a PCIe switch
> before, and you have already queued the fix to make the ASPM code deal
> with that.
>
> So I think it /would/ be better for the other drivers to not bother
> mocking up the root port, and simply expose the downstream device as
> B/D/F 0/0/0 (assuming the bus range starts at 0).
>
> It really looks like Altera, Aardvark, Sigma, etc are all in the same
> boat here, and need to
> a) filter type 0 config TLPs to avoid the downstream device to appear
> 32 times, and
> b) mangle config space accesses to the 'root port' to hide BARs that
> have different meanings in this context (the size of the inbound
> window), in order to prevent the PCI resource allocation routines to
> waste huge amounts of BAR space on them.
I don't know what to do about this. Obviously it's not your problem
to clean this up.
I don't know anything about the topology of those systems. If the
ASPM thing was the only issue, we can probably fix that. Of course,
that means no device connected to the link from those RCs could use
ASPM (maybe that's the case anyway with the mocked-up root ports).
> >>> +static int pci_dw_ecam_config_read(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, int where,
> >>> + int size, u32 *val)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct pci_config_window *cfg = bus->sysdata;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * The Synopsys dw PCIe controller in RC mode will not filter type 0
> >>> + * config TLPs sent to devices 1 and up on its downstream port,
> >>> + * resulting in devices appearing multiple times on bus 0 unless we
> >>> + * filter them here.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (bus->number == cfg->busr.start && PCI_SLOT(devfn) > 0) {
> >>
> >> Trivial, but maybe you could factor out this test? We already have
> >> these functions that do basically the same thing and it'd be nice to
> >> use a similar pattern (altera and dw also check for the link being up,
> >> which seems racy and possibly bogus to me):
> >>
> >> altera_pcie_valid_device()
> >> dw_pcie_valid_device()
> >> rockchip_pcie_valid_device()
> >>
>
> This is rather difficult to factor out, I'm afraid:
>
> static bool altera_pcie_valid_device(struct altera_pcie *pcie,
> struct pci_bus *bus, int dev)
>
> static int dw_pcie_valid_device(struct pcie_port *pp, struct pci_bus *bus,
> int dev)
>
> static int rockchip_pcie_valid_device(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip,
> struct pci_bus *bus, int dev)
>
> They all use different struct types to describe the RC, and the fact
> that they model a root port means the type0 TLP filter should be
> applied to bus 1 not bus 0.
> So I agree there is some similarity between these, but not as much
> with the driver I am proposing.
Sorry, I didn't mean to factor all these out into a single routine; I
just meant maybe we could add a pci_dw_valid_device() with a structure
similar to those I mentioned.
> >> The fact that altera and rockchip do essentially the same thing as dw
> >> here suggests that this pattern is not limited to DesignWare.
> >>
>
> No.
> >> These other functions also do something similar, though not structured
> >> the same way:
> >>
> >> hisi_pcie_rd_conf()
> >> advk_pcie_rd_conf()
> >> thunder_pem_bridge_read()
> >> rcar_pcie_config_access()
> >> gapspci_config_access()
> >>
> >
> > I can look into that.
> >
>
> I think only hisi_pcie_rd_conf() comes close to what I need to do in
> this driver, and this is not surprising given that it uses Synopsys IP
> as well. I would like to replace that entirely with this driver at
> some point, but for now I'd like to proceed with Marvell Armada 8k and
> Socionext Synquacer only, given that those are the only ones I can
> actually test myself.
Sorry again, more unclear communication on my part. I don't think we
can easily factor these things out; I was really just making the
observation that these all look pretty similar and it would be good to
make this new driver look as similar to the existing ones as possible.
Bjorn
