Le 30/04/2018 19:04, Bjorn Helgaas a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 01:36:53PM +0000, Gilles Buloz wrote:
>> Le 30/04/2018 10:46, Gilles BULOZ a écrit :
>>> Le 27/04/2018 18:56, Bjorn Helgaas a écrit :
>>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:29:32PM +0000, Gilles Buloz wrote:
>>>>> Le 27/04/2018 10:43, Ard Biesheuvel a écrit :
>>>>>> (add Bjorn and linux-pci)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13 April 2018 at 19:32, Gilles Buloz <Gilles.Buloz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear developers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I currently have two functional workarounds for this issue but
>>>>>>> would like to know which one you would recommend, if any :-) I'm
>>>>>>> using a LS1043A CPU (NXP QorIQ Layerscape) and get a "synchronous
>>>>>>> external abort" when booting because of a PCI config read during
>>>>>>> PCI scan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm using a custom hardware (based on LS1043ARDB) having a
>>>>>>> PEX8112 PCIe-to-PCI bridge connected to the LS1043A to have a PCI
>>>>>>> slot for legacy devices. This bridge only supports PCI-Compatible
>>>>>>> config accesses (offset 0x00-0xFF).
>>>> I would guess the PEX8112 itself has 4K of config space, but it only
>>>> forwards 256 bytes of config space to the conventional PCI secondary
>>>> bus.
>>>>
>>>>>>> On this PCI slot I connect a PCI module made of a PCI-to-PCIe
>>>>>>> bridge plus PCIe devices behind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem occurs when the kernel probes the PCIe devices : as
>>>>>>> they are PCIe devices, the kernel does a PCI config read access
>>>>>>> at offset 0x100 to check if "PCIe extended capability registers"
>>>>>>> are accessible (see drivers/pci/probe.c, function
>>>>>>> pci_cfg_space_size_ext()). Unfortunately the PEX8112 PCIe-to-PCI
>>>>>>> bridge that is in the path reports an error to the CPU for this
>>>>>>> access, and it seems there's no way to disable that on this
>>>>>>> bridge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first workaround I found was to patch
>>>>>>> drivers/pci/host/pci-layerscape.c to have PCIE_ABSERR_SETTING set
>>>>>>> to 0x9400 instead of 0x9401 (for PCIE_ABSERR register) to disable
>>>>>>> error reporting. This only impacts an NXP part of the Linux
>>>>>>> kernel code, but I'm not sure this is a good idea (however it
>>>>>>> seems to be like that on Intel platforms where even MEM accesses
>>>>>>> to a no-device address return FF without any error).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've also tried another workaround that works : patch
>>>>>>> drivers/pci/probe.c to use bus_flags to remember if a bus is
>>>>>>> behind a bridge without extended address capability, to avoid PCi
>>>>>>> config read accesses at offset 0x100 in pci_cfg_space_size() /
>>>>>>> pci_cfg_space_size_ext(). But this patch impacts the generic PCI
>>>>>>> probe method of Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any Idea to properly handle that issue ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems like a rather unusual configuration, but I guess that
>>>>>> if the first bridge/switch advertises its inability to support
>>>>>> extended config space accesses, we should not be performing them
>>>>>> on any of its subordinate buses. How does the PEX8112 advertise
>>>>>> this limitation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I wonder if it is reasonable in the first place to
>>>>>> expect that a PCIe device works as expected passing through a
>>>>>> legacy PCI layer like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The PEX8112 PCIe-to-PCI bridge has capability PCI_CAP_ID_EXP, but
>>>>> has no PCI_CAP_ID_PCIX capability. As I understand the lack of
>>>>> PCI_CAP_ID_PCIX is advertising this limitation on the PCI side (no
>>>>> support for PCI config offset >=0x100).
>>>> Sounds right to me.
>>>>
>>>>> Also I guess in the case of a bridge having PCI_CAP_ID_PCIX, this
>>>>> limitation would be advertised by the lack of PCI_X_STATUS_266MHZ
>>>>> and PCI_X_STATUS_533MHZ (as done in drivers/pci/probe.c at
>>>>> pci_cfg_space_size())
>>>> Also sounds right. Per the PCI-X spec, checking for PCI_X_STATUS_266MHZ
>>>> should be enough, but it shouldn't hurt to check for either
>>>> PCI_X_STATUS_266MHZ or PCI_X_STATUS_533MHZ.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm currently using the attached patch (for kernel 4.1.35-rt41 from
>>>>> NXP Yocto BSP). It uses bus_flags to remember if a bus is behind a
>>>>> bridge without extended address capability to avoid PCi config
>>>>> accesses at offset >= 0x100. Thanks to this patch I now have a
>>>>> functional system with functional PCI/PCIe devices.
>>>> The patch seems like it's looking at the right things, but I don't
>>>> want to build it into pci_scan_bridge_extend() because that function
>>>> is much too complicated already.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather build it into pci_cfg_space_size() or
>>>> pci_cfg_space_size_ext() somehow. Maybe something along these lines?
>>>> This doesn't account for the case of a PCIe-to-PCI-X Mode 2 bridge; in
>>>> that case, I think all 4K would be accessible on the PCI-X side.
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>> index ac91b6fd0bcd..d8b091f0bcd1 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>> @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ static bool pci_ext_cfg_is_aliased(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>> * pci_cfg_space_size - Get the configuration space size of the PCI device
>>>> * @dev: PCI device
>>>> *
>>>> - * Regular PCI devices have 256 bytes, but PCI-X 2 and PCI Express devices
>>>> + * Regular PCI devices have 256 bytes, but PCI-X Mode 2 and PCI Express devices
>>>> * have 4096 bytes. Even if the device is capable, that doesn't mean we can
>>>> * access it. Maybe we don't have a way to generate extended config space
>>>> * accesses, or the device is behind a reverse Express bridge. So we try
>>>> @@ -1376,9 +1376,14 @@ static bool pci_ext_cfg_is_aliased(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>> */
>>>> static int pci_cfg_space_size_ext(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>> {
>>>> + struct pci_dev *bridge = pci_upstream_bridge(dev);
>>>> u32 status;
>>>> int pos = PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE;
>>>> + if (bridge && pci_is_pcie(bridge) &&
>>>> + pci_pcie_type(bridge) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE)
>>>> + return PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE;
>>>> +
>>>> if (pci_read_config_dword(dev, pos, &status) != PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL)
>>>> return PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE;
>>>> if (status == 0xffffffff || pci_ext_cfg_is_aliased(dev))
>>>>
>>>>> --- include/linux/pci.h.orig 2018-03-26 16:51:18.050000000 +0000
>>>>> +++ include/linux/pci.h 2018-03-26 16:51:27.660000000 +0000
>>>>> @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@
>>>>> enum pci_bus_flags {
>>>>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MSI = (__force pci_bus_flags_t) 1,
>>>>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MMRBC = (__force pci_bus_flags_t) 2,
>>>>> + PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE = (__force pci_bus_flags_t) 4,
>>>>> };
>>>>> /* These values come from the PCI Express Spec */
>>>>> --- drivers/pci/probe.c.orig 2018-01-22 09:29:52.000000000 +0000
>>>>> +++ drivers/pci/probe.c 2018-03-26 16:54:30.830000000 +0000
>>>>> @@ -827,6 +827,28 @@
>>>>> child->primary = primary;
>>>>> pci_bus_insert_busn_res(child, secondary, subordinate);
>>>>> child->bridge_ctl = bctl;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + int pos;
>>>>> + u32 status;
>>>>> + bool pci_compat_cfg_space = false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev) || (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCIE_BRIDGE) || (pci_pcie_type(dev) ==
>>>>> PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE)) {
>>>>> + /* for PCI/PCI bridges, or PCIe/PCI bridge in forward or reverse mode, we have to check for PCI-X
>>>>> capabilities */
>>>>> + pos = pci_find_capability(dev, PCI_CAP_ID_PCIX);
>>>>> + if (pos) {
>>>>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, pos + PCI_X_STATUS, &status);
>>>>> + if (!(status & (PCI_X_STATUS_266MHZ | PCI_X_STATUS_533MHZ)))
>>>>> + pci_compat_cfg_space = true;
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + pci_compat_cfg_space = true;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + if (pci_compat_cfg_space) {
>>>>> + dev_info(&dev->dev, "[%04x:%04x] Child bus limited to PCI-Compatible config space\n", dev->vendor,
>>>>> dev->device);
>>>>> + child->bus_flags |= PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> cmax = pci_scan_child_bus(child);
>>>>> @@ -1098,6 +1120,11 @@
>>>>> goto fail;
>>>>> }
>>>>> + if (dev->bus->bus_flags & PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE) {
>>>>> + dev_info(&dev->dev, "[%04x:%04x] PCI-Compatible config space only due to parent bus(es)\n", dev->vendor, dev->device);
>>>>> + return PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> return pci_cfg_space_size_ext(dev);
>>>>> fail:
>>> Bjorn,
>>> If I'm right about your proposed patch to
>>> pci_cfg_space_size_ext(), *bridge is pointing to the upper device
>>> of device *dev being checked. I understand the purpose, but I
>>> think this fails for my config that is :
>>>
>>> LS1043 PCIe root -> PEX8112 PCIe-to-PCI bridge -> PMC slot connector -> PCI-to-PCIe bridge -> PCIe switch (4 ports) -> 4 PCIe
>>> devices (one on each port)
>>>
>>> because :
>>> - when pci_cfg_space_size_ext() is run on the 4 PCIe devices,
>>> *bridge is the PCIe switch which is not matching
>>> PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE. In this case *bridge should also be
>>> checked for the parent bus of the PCIe switch, and so on.
>>> - when pci_cfg_space_size_ext() is run for the PCI-to-PCIe bridge,
>>> *bridge is the PEX8112 that is also not matching
>>> PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE but PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCIE_BRIDGE. This leads
>>> to a config access at offset 0x100 to the PCI-to-PCIe bridge, so a
>>> crash (because of the PEX8112)
>>>
>>> I think setting a bit in bus_flags when creating a child bus is
>>> very efficient because once set it is automatically inherited by
>>> all child buses and then the only thing that pci_cfg_space_size()
>>> has to do for each device is to check for this bit. Also this
>>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE flag is actually a bus property
>>> that is compliant with the purpose of bus_flags.
> Yeah, it needs to be inherited somehow, and I don't like the idea of
> traversing up the tree, so I prefer your idea. Although I don't
> actually see the inheritance in the patch below -- I thought there
> would be something like this:
>
> dev = bus->self;
> parent_bus = dev->bus;
> if (parent_bus && parent_bus->bus_flags & PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE)
> bus->bus_flags |= PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE;
>
> pci_scan_bridge_extend() calls pci_add_new_bus() from two places. You
> added a call to pci_bus_check_compat_cfg_space() at one of them, and
> it's not obvious why we wouldn't need it at the other place, too.
>
> Can you set this up in pci_alloc_child_bus()? If you can put it
> there, it would be clear that every time we allocate a secondary bus,
> we figure out whether extended config space is accessible on that bus.
>
> That doesn't cover the root bus case, where we currently assume the
> host bridge can generate config accesses to all config space supported
> by devices on the root bus. But we don't have a problem there, so I
> guess we don't need to worry about it now.
>
> If you can put it in pci_alloc_child_bus(), could you make your new
> function return a boolean, e.g., pci_bus_ext_cfg_accessible(), or
> similar, and then use the result to set the
> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE flag? Names like "*_check_*()" don't
> tell the reader much about what's happening.
>
>>> I agree that pci_scan_bridge_extend() is already too complicated,
>>> so would you be okay to only add one line to it :
>>> pci_bus_set_compat_cfg_space(child);
>>> and put all the code I suggested in this new function
>>> pci_bus_set_compat_cfg_space() ? (also supporting PCI-X Mode 2
>>> devices)
>>>
>>> Improvement : this function can return immediately if the child
>>> bus has already inherited the flag from its parent.
>> I mean something like the attached patch I tested this morning...
>> Sorry, this is for old kernel 4.1.35 but just to clarify what I
>> propose (also applies to 4.16.6 by changing value of
>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE in pci.h to 8).
>> --- include/linux/pci.h.orig 2018-03-26 16:51:18.050000000 +0000
>> +++ include/linux/pci.h 2018-04-30 09:50:57.660000000 +0000
>> @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@
>> enum pci_bus_flags {
>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MSI = (__force pci_bus_flags_t) 1,
>> PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MMRBC = (__force pci_bus_flags_t) 2,
>> + PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE = (__force pci_bus_flags_t) 4,
>> };
>>
>> /* These values come from the PCI Express Spec */
>> --- drivers/pci/probe.c.orig 2018-01-22 09:29:52.000000000 +0000
>> +++ drivers/pci/probe.c 2018-04-30 13:29:50.600000000 +0000
>> @@ -754,6 +754,35 @@
>> PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE);
>> }
>>
>> +static void pci_bus_check_compat_cfg_space(struct pci_bus *bus)
>> +{
>> + struct pci_dev *dev = bus->self;
>> + bool pci_compat_cfg_space = false;
>> + int pos;
>> + u32 status;
>> +
>> + if (bus->bus_flags & PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (!pci_is_pcie(dev) || /* PCI/PCI bridge */
>> + (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCIE_BRIDGE) || /* PCIe/PCI bridge in forward mode */
>> + (pci_pcie_type(dev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE)) { /* PCIe/PCI bridge in reverse mode */
>> + pos = pci_find_capability(dev, PCI_CAP_ID_PCIX);
>> + if (pos) {
>> + pci_read_config_dword(dev, pos + PCI_X_STATUS, &status);
>> + if (!(status & (PCI_X_STATUS_266MHZ | PCI_X_STATUS_533MHZ)))
>> + pci_compat_cfg_space = true;
>> + } else {
>> + pci_compat_cfg_space = true;
>> + }
>> + if (pci_compat_cfg_space) {
>> + dev_info(&dev->dev, "bus %02x limited to PCI-Compatible config space\n",
>> + bus->number);
>> + bus->bus_flags |= PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * If it's a bridge, configure it and scan the bus behind it.
>> * For CardBus bridges, we don't scan behind as the devices will
>> @@ -827,6 +856,7 @@
>> child->primary = primary;
>> pci_bus_insert_busn_res(child, secondary, subordinate);
>> child->bridge_ctl = bctl;
>> + pci_bus_check_compat_cfg_space(child);
>> }
>>
>> cmax = pci_scan_child_bus(child);
>> @@ -1084,6 +1114,9 @@
>> u32 status;
>> u16 class;
>>
>> + if (dev->bus->bus_flags & PCI_BUS_FLAGS_COMPAT_CFG_SPACE)
>> + return PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE;
>> +
>> class = dev->class >> 8;
>> if (class == PCI_CLASS_BRIDGE_HOST)
>> return pci_cfg_space_size_ext(dev);
>
The inheritence is made by this line in pci_alloc_child_bus() :
child->bus_flags = parent->bus_flags;
So once we detect a limitation on a bridge impacting a child bus and that we set the flag in child->bus_flags, this flag is
automatically present in the child->bus_flags of all its children buses.
I agree with your remarks and will create a function named pci_bus_check_compat_cfg_space() that will be called from
pci_alloc_child_bus().
I'll test that on Wednesday 2th and will give you my feedback.
