Message-ID: <20150903182303.GA3116@sean.stalley.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:23:04 -0700
From:	"Sean O. Stalley" <sean.stalley@...el.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Rajat Jain <rajatxjain@...il.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	"gong.chen@...ux.intel.com" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: Add support for Enhanced Allocation devices

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:46:54AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:29:38PM -0700, Sean O. Stalley wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 04:21:59PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:01:27PM -0700, Sean O. Stalley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 02:25:50PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Sean O. Stalley <sean.stalley@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Would it be better to modify pci_claim_resource() to support EA instead of adding pci_ea_claim_resource()?
> > > > > > That way, EA entries would be claimed at the same time as traditional BARs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, I think so.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I'll make it work this way in the next patchset.
> > > > 
> > > > > Why wouldn't pci_claim_resource() work as-is for EA?  I see that
> > > > > pci_ea_get_parent_resource() defaults to iomem_resource or
> > > > > ioport_resource if we don't find a parent, but I don't understand why
> > > > > that's necessary.
> > > > 
> > > > EA resources may (or may not) be in the parent's range[1].
> > > > If the parent doesn't describe this range, we want to default to the top-level resource.
> > > > Other than that case, I think pci_claim_resource would work as-is.
> > > > 
> > > > -Sean
> > > > 
> > > > [1] From the EA ECN:
> > > > For a bridge function that is permitted to implement EA based on the rules above, it is
> > > > permitted, but not required, for the bridge function to use EA mechanisms to indicate
> > > > resource ranges that are located behind the bridge Function (see Section 6.9.1.2).
> > > 
> > > [BTW, in EA ECN 23_Oct_2014_Final, this text is in sec 6.9, not 6.9.1.2]
> > > 
> > > I agree that it implies EA resources need not be in the parent's *EA*
> > > range.  But I would read it as saying "a bridge can use either the
> > > usual window registers or EA to indicate resources forwarded
> > > downstream."
> > > 
> > > What happens in the following case?
> > > 
> > >   00:00.0: PCI bridge to [bus 01]
> > >   00:00.0:   bridge window [mem 0x80000000-0x8fffffff]
> > >   01:00.0: EA 0: [mem 0x90000000-0x9000ffff]
> > >
> > > The 00:00.0 bridge knows nothing about EA.  The 01:00.0 EA device has
> > > a fixed region at 0x90000000.  The ECN says:
> > > 
> > >   System firmware/software must comprehend that such bridge functions
> > >   [those that are permitted to implement EA] are not required to
> > >   indicate inclusively all resources behind the bridge, and as a
> > >   result system firmware/software must make a complete search of all
> > >   functions behind the bridge to comprehend the resources used by
> > >   those functions.
> > 
> > The intention of this line was to indicate that EA regions are not required
> > to be inside of the Base+Limit window.
> 
> It would be a lot nicer if the terminology here built on terminology
> used in the original specs.  The P2P Bridge spec defines rules for
> when a bridge forwards transactions between its primary and secondary
> interfaces using Command register Enable bits and Base and Limit
> registers.  It doesn't say anything about "indicating resources behind
> the bridge."

Thanks for the feedback. I will forward it on the spec-writer.

> > If an EA device is connected below a bridge, that bridge must be aware of EA.
> > It is assumed that the bridge is aware of the fixed EA regions below it,
> > so system software doesn't need to program the window to include them.
> 
> Is the requirement that every bridge upstream of an EA device must be
> aware of EA in the ECN somewhere?  What does it even mean for a bridge
> to be "aware of EA"?  That it has an EA Capability?

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. Yes, it must be an EA bridge.

Also, I should point out that this patchset doesn't add support for EA bridges.
It only adds support for EA endpoints that are using an EA entries instead of BARs.

> The EA ECN doesn't change anything in the P2P bridge spec, so a bridge
> that forwards EA regions not described by its Base/Limit registers
> sounds like it would be non-conforming.

Your right, It it seems like there would need to be a change to the P2P spec.
I'll investigate...

> The EA ECN *does* say (end of sec 6.9) that Memory and I/O Space
> enables still work, so I assume that if we clear those bits, a bridge
> will not forward EA regions, and an endpoint will not respond to EA
> regions.

Yes, they still work. 

> AFAIK, config transaction forwarding is controlled only by the
> Secondary and Subordinate Bus Number registers.  So I assume there's
> no way to disable bridge forwarding of an EA Bus number range.

That is how I read it as well.

> > This is part of the reason why EA devices must be permanently connected
> > (to make sure it doesn't end up behind an old bridge).
> > Re-reading the spec, I can see that this requirement isn't explicitly stated.
> > 
> > > A bridge was never required to indicate, e.g., via its window
> > > registers, anything about the resources behind it.  Software always
> > > had to search behind the bridge and look at all the downstream BARs.
> > > What's new here is that software now has to look for downstream EA
> > > entries in addition to BARs, and the EA entries are at fixed
> > > addresses.
> > > 
> > > My question is what the implication is for address routing performed
> > > by the bridge.  The EA ECN doesn't mention any changes there, so I
> > > assume it is software's responsibility to reprogram the 00:00.0 mem
> > > window so it includes [mem 0x90000000-0x9000ffff].
> > 
> > The Base+Limit window is not required to include EA regions.
> > 	In the example shown in in Figure 6-1, the bridge above Bus N [...]
> > 	is permitted to not indicate the resources used by the two functions
> > 	in “Si component C”
> > 
> > Before, all the BAR regions would be inside the window range.
> > The Base+Limit "indicated" the Range of all the BARs behind the bridge.
> > Once the window was set, system software could avoid an address collision
> > with every device on the bus by avoiding the window.
> > 
> > BAR-equivalent EA regions aren't required to be inside the Base+Limit window,
> > which is why System firmware/software must search all the functions behind a bus
> > to avoid address collisions.
> > 
> > > If software does have to reprogram that window, the normal
> > > pci_claim_resource() should work.  If it doesn't have to reprogram the
> > > window, and there's some magical way for 01:00.0 to work even though
> > > we don't route address space to it, I suspect we'll need significantly
> > > more changes than just pci_ea_claim_resource(), because then 00:00.0
> > > is really not a PCI bridge any more.
> 
> Assuming the Memory Enable bit of an EA bridge affects the EA regions,
> I think EA resources of devices behind the bridge should appear as
> children of the bridge, not of iomem_resource.  I guess that means the
> bridge should claim the EA regions it forwards.
> 
> Bjorn

Those bits should affect the EA regions.
I'll make the EA resources children of the bridge in the next patchset.

Thanks for reviewing,
Sean
--
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