Message-ID: <EE11001F9E5DDD47B7634E2F8A612F2E1F8815A9@lhreml507-mbx>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:10:13 +0000
From:   Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>,
        David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "Rafael Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
        Jayachandran C <jchandra@...adcom.com>,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
        Duc Dang <dhdang@....com>,
        Robert Richter <robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com>,
        "Marcin Wojtas" <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
        Wangyijing <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Gallo <andrea.gallo@...aro.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        "liudongdong (C)" <liudongdong3@...wei.com>,
        Jeff Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V6 3/5] PCI: thunder-pem: Allow to probe PEM-specific
 register range for ACPI case

Hi Lorenzo, Bjorn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lorenzo Pieralisi [mailto:lorenzo.pieralisi@....com]
> Sent: 22 September 2016 10:50
> To: Bjorn Helgaas
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel; Tomasz Nowicki; David Daney; Will Deacon; Catalin
> Marinas; Rafael Wysocki; Arnd Bergmann; Hanjun Guo; Sinan Kaya;
> Jayachandran C; Christopher Covington; Duc Dang; Robert Richter; Marcin
> Wojtas; Liviu Dudau; Wangyijing; Mark Salter; linux-
> pci@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; Linaro ACPI
> Mailman List; Jon Masters; Andrea Gallo; Jeremy Linton; liudongdong
> (C); Gabriele Paoloni; Jeff Hugo; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Rafael J. Wysocki
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/5] PCI: thunder-pem: Allow to probe PEM-
> specific register range for ACPI case
> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:04:57PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:05:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:17:44PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:09:25PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > None of these platforms can be fixed entirely in software, and
> given
> > > > > that we will not be adding quirks for new broken hardware, we
> should
> > > > > ask ourselves whether having two versions of a quirk, i.e., one
> for
> > > > > broken hardware + currently shipping firmware, and one for the
> same
> > > > > broken hardware with fixed firmware is really an improvement
> over what
> > > > > has been proposed here.
> > > >
> > > > We're talking about two completely different types of quirks:
> > > >
> > > >   1) MCFG quirks to use memory-mapped config space that doesn't
> quite
> > > >      conform to the ECAM model in the PCIe spec, and
> > > >
> > > >   2) Some yet-to-be-determined method to describe address space
> > > >      consumed by a bridge.
> > > >
> > > > The first two patches of this series are a nice implementation
> for 1).
> > > > The third patch (ThunderX-specific) is one possibility for 2),
> but I
> > > > don't like it because there's no way for generic software like
> the
> > > > ACPI core to discover these resources.
> > >
> > > Ok, so basically this means that to implement (2) we need to assign
> > > some sort of _HID to these quirky PCI bridges (so that we know what
> > > device they represent and we can retrieve their _CRS). I take from
> > > this discussion that the goal is to make sure that all non-config
> > > resources have to be declared through _CRS device objects, which is
> > > fine but that requires a FW update (unless we can fabricate ACPI
> > > devices and corresponding _CRS in the kernel whenever we match a
> > > given MCFG table signature).
> >
> > All resources consumed by ACPI devices should be declared through
> > _CRS.  If you want to fabricate ACPI devices or _CRS via kernel
> > quirks, that's fine with me.  This could be triggered via MCFG
> > signature, DMI info, host bridge _HID, etc.
> 
> I think the PNP quirk approach + PNP0c02 resource put forward by Gab
> is enough.

Great thanks as we take a final decision I will ask Dogndgong to submit
another RFC based on this approach

> 
> > > We discussed this already and I think we should make a decision:
> > >
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-
> March/414722.html
> > >
> > > > > > I'd like to step back and come up with some understanding of
> how
> > > > > > non-broken firmware *should* deal with this issue.  Then, if
> we *do*
> > > > > > work around this particular broken firmware in the kernel, it
> would be
> > > > > > nice to do it in a way that fits in with that understanding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, if a companion ACPI device is the preferred
> solution, an
> > > > > > ACPI quirk could fabricate a device with the required
> resources.  That
> > > > > > would address the problem closer to the source and make it
> more likely
> > > > > > that the rest of the system will work correctly: /proc/iomem
> could
> > > > > > make sense, things that look at _CRS generically would work
> (e.g,
> > > > > > /sys/, an admittedly hypothetical "lsacpi", etc.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hard-coding stuff in drivers is a point solution that doesn't
> provide
> > > > > > any guidance for future platforms and makes it likely that
> the hack
> > > > > > will get copied into even more drivers.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I see. But the guidance for future platforms should be 'do
> not
> > > > > rely on quirks', and what I am arguing here is that the more we
> polish
> > > > > up this code and make it clean and reusable, the more likely it
> is
> > > > > that will end up getting abused by new broken hardware that we
> set out
> > > > > to reject entirely in the first place.
> > > > >
> > > > > So of course, if the quirk involves claiming resources, let's
> make
> > > > > sure that this occurs in the cleanest and most compliant way
> possible.
> > > > > But any factoring/reuse concerns other than for the current
> crop of
> > > > > broken hardware should be avoided imo.
> > > >
> > > > If future hardware is completely ECAM-compliant and we don't need
> any
> > > > more MCFG quirks, that would be great.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > But we'll still need to describe that memory-mapped config space
> > > > somewhere.  If that's done with PNP0C02 or similar devices (as is
> done
> > > > on my x86 laptop), we'd be all set.
> > >
> > > I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you referring
> > > to MCFG regions reported as PNP0c02 resources through its _CRS ?
> >
> > Yes.  PCI Firmware Spec r3.0, Table 4-2, note 2 says address ranges
> > reported via MCFG or _CBA should be reserved by _CRS of a PNP0C02
> > device.
> 
> Ok, that's agreed. It goes without saying that since you are quoting
> the PCI spec, if FW fails to report MCFG regions in a PNP0c02 device
> _CRS I will consider that a FW bug.
> 
> > > IIUC PNP0C02 is a reservation mechanism, but it does not help us
> > > associate its _CRS to a specific PCI host bridge instance, right ?
> >
> > Gab proposed a hierarchy that *would* associate a PNP0C02 device with
> > a PCI bridge:
> >
> >   Device (PCI1) {
> >     Name (_HID, "HISI0080") // PCI Express Root Bridge
> >     Name (_CID, "PNP0A03") // Compatible PCI Root Bridge
> >     Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) { // Root complex resources
> (windows) }
> >     Device (RES0) {
> >       Name (_HID, "HISI0081") // HiSi PCIe RC config base address
> >       Name (_CID, "PNP0C02")  // Motherboard reserved resource
> >       Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { ... }
> >     }
> >   }
> >
> > That's a possibility.  The PCI Firmware Spec suggests putting RES0 at
> > the root (under \_SB), but I don't know why.
> >
> > Putting it at the root means we couldn't generically associate it
> with
> > a bridge, although I could imagine something like this:
> >
> >   Device (RES1) {
> >     Name (_HID, "HISI0081") // HiSi PCIe RC config base address
> >     Name (_CID, "PNP0C02")  // Motherboard reserved resource
> >     Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { ... }
> >     Method (BRDG) { "PCI1" }  // hand-wavy ASL
> >   }
> >   Device (PCI1) {
> >     Name (_HID, "HISI0080") // PCI Express Root Bridge
> >     Name (_CID, "PNP0A03") // Compatible PCI Root Bridge
> >     Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) { // Root complex resources
> (windows) }
> >   }
> >
> > Where you could search PNP0C02 devices for a cookie that matched the
> > host bridge.o
> 
> Ok, I am fine with both and I think we are converging, but the way
> to solve this problem has to be uniform for all ARM partners (and
> not only ARM). Two points here:
> 
> 1) Adding a device/subdevice allows people to add a _CRS reporting the
>    non-window bridge resources. Fine. It also allows people to chuck in
>    there all sorts of _DSD properties to describe their PCI host bridge
>    as it is done with DT properties (those _DSD can contain eg clocks
>    etc.), this may be tempting (so that they can reuse the same DT
>    driver and do not have to update their firmware) but I want to be
>    clear here: that must not happen. So, a subdevice with a _CRS to
>    report resources, yes, but it will stop there.
> 2) It is unclear to me how to formalize the above. People should not
>    write FW by reading the PCI mailing list, so these guidelines have
> to
>    be written, somehow. I do not want to standardize quirks, I want
>    to prevent random ACPI table content, which is different.
>    Should I report this to the ACPI spec working group ? If we do
>    not do that everyone will go solve this problem as they deem fit.
> 

Do we really need to formalize this?

As we discussed in the Linaro call at the moment we have few vendors
that need quirks and we want to avoid promoting/accepting quirks for
the future.

At the time of the call I think we decided to informally accept a set
of quirks for the current platforms and reject any other quirk coming
after a certain date/kernel version (this to be decided).

I am not sure if there is a way to document/formalize a temporary
exception from the rule...

Thanks

Gab 


> [...]
> 
> > > For FW that is immutable I really do not see what we can do apart
> > > from hardcoding the non-config resources (consumed by a bridge),
> > > somehow.
> >
> > Right.  Well, I assume you mean we should hard-code "non-window
> > resources consumed directly by a bridge".  If firmware in the field
> is
> > broken, we should work around it, and that may mean hard-coding some
> > resources.
> >
> > My point is that the hard-coding should not be buried in a driver
> > where it's invisible to the rest of the kernel.  If we hard-code it
> in
> > a quirk that adds _CRS entries, then the kernel will work just like
> it
> > would if the firmware had been correct in the first place.  The
> > resource will appear in /sys/devices/pnp*/*/resources and
> /proc/iomem,
> > and if we ever used _SRS to assign or move ACPI devices, we would
> know
> > to avoid the bridge resource.
> 
> We are in complete agreement here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists