Message-ID: <20091201195523.GA16534@lackof.org>
Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:55:23 -0700
From:	Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...com>
Cc:	Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>,
	jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, yinghai@...nel.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: Always set prefetchable base/limit upper32
	registers

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:10:54PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 17:19 -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 05:03:32PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:51:44PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > Prior to 1f82de10 we always initialized the upper 32bits of the
> > > > prefetchable memory window, regardless of the address range used.
> > > > Now we only touch it for a >32bit address, which means the upper32
> > > > registers remain whatever the BIOS initialized them too.
> > > > 
> > > > It's valid for the BIOS to set the upper32 base/limit to
> > > > 0xffffffff/0x00000000, which makes us program prefetchable ranges
> > > > like 0xffffffffabc00000 - 0x00000000abc00000
> > > > 
> > > > Revert the chunk of 1f82de10 that made this conditional so we always
> > > > write the upper32 registers and remove now unused pref_mem64 variable.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...com>
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
> > 
> > NAK this - I messed up. Yinghai is correct. Something else is going on.
> > 
> > It might be perfectly OK to read 0xffffffffabc00000 if the bridge
> > isn't using the upper32 Prefetchable register. Maybe the problem is
> > some code is reading the upper32 value without checking that it's valid?
> 
> Apologies for not threading the v2 patch into the original thread.  The
> prefetchable base register does support the upper32 bits and it does
> work correctly.  However per the pci-to-pci bridge spec, a little lower
> on page 47, devices only supporting 32bit prefetchable ranges are to
> implement the upper32 registers as read-only registers that return zero.
> In the example above, -1 in the upper32 base simply means that base >
> limit, which disables the range.
> 
> Further investigation shows that the MEM_64 resource flag is setup for
> this range based on hardware capabilities, but then it gets removed in
> pbus_size_mem() because we want to use the range to map a 32bit option
> ROM.  This leaves us entering pci_setup_bridge() with -1 in the upper32
> base and the MEM_64 flag clear, so we never touch the upper32 base
> register.  I think this patch is still a simple, safe solution.  Thanks,

Yup - after reading the PCI-PCI spec a 3rd time. I have to agree.
Alex, sorry for the flip flopping. Pre-2.6.30 code was clearly working.
Please add:
  Reviewed-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>

I assumed Yinghai's objection was based on a specific problem he had
seen with writing upper32 register. Bjorn asked the right question.
If there isn't a specific problem, I'd prefer AW's simpler patch.

I'm also thinking the resource allocation design which uses resource
flags to indicate resources assigned (e.g a resource is 32-bit) rather
than HW attributes is broken. We should be able to allocate 32-bit Option
ROM into a 64-bit prefetchable MMIO window that is programmed with upper32
as zeros without changing the resource type. The resource allocation
code only be looking at Resource "Type" when (re)programming
window registers. The rest of the time (programming BARs) should be
able to just test "if it fits".
 
cheers,
grant
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists