Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:16:06 +0000
From:   "liviu.dudau@....com" <liviu.dudau@....com>
To:     Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Yuanzhichang <yuanzhichang@...ilicon.com>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lorenzo.pieralisi@....com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        "minyard@....org" <minyard@....org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "zourongrong@...il.com" <zourongrong@...il.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "kantyzc@....com" <kantyzc@....com>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
        "bhelgaas@...gl e.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "zhichang.yuan02@...il.com" <zhichang.yuan02@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:53:53PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> Hi Liviu

Hi Gabriele,

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: liviu.dudau@....com [mailto:liviu.dudau@....com]
> > Sent: 11 November 2016 14:46
> > To: Gabriele Paoloni
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; Yuanzhichang;
> > mark.rutland@....com; devicetree@...r.kernel.org;
> > lorenzo.pieralisi@....com; minyard@....org; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org;
> > benh@...nel.crashing.org; John Garry; will.deacon@....com; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org; xuwei (O); Linuxarm; zourongrong@...il.com;
> > robh+dt@...nel.org; kantyzc@....com; linux-serial@...r.kernel.org;
> > catalin.marinas@....com; olof@...om.net; bhelgaas@...gl e.com;
> > zhichang.yuan02@...il.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on
> > Hip06
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 01:39:35PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > > Hi Arnd
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@...db.de]
> > > > Sent: 10 November 2016 16:07
> > > > To: Gabriele Paoloni
> > > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; Yuanzhichang;
> > > > mark.rutland@....com; devicetree@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > lorenzo.pieralisi@....com; minyard@....org; linux-
> > pci@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > benh@...nel.crashing.org; John Garry; will.deacon@....com; linux-
> > > > kernel@...r.kernel.org; xuwei (O); Linuxarm; zourongrong@...il.com;
> > > > robh+dt@...nel.org; kantyzc@....com; linux-serial@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > catalin.marinas@....com; olof@...om.net; liviu.dudau@....com;
> > > > bhelgaas@...gl e.com; zhichang.yuan02@...il.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on
> > > > Hip06
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 3:36:49 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Where should we get the range from? For LPC we know that it is
> > going
> > > > > Work on anything that is not used by PCI I/O space, and this is
> > > > > why we use [0, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO]
> > > >
> > > > It should be allocated the same way we allocate PCI config space
> > > > segments. This is currently done with the io_range list in
> > > > drivers/pci/pci.c, which isn't perfect but could be extended
> > > > if necessary. Based on what others commented here, I'd rather
> > > > make the differences between ISA/LPC and PCI I/O ranges smaller
> > > > than larger.
> > 
> > Gabriele,
> > 
> > >
> > > I am not sure this would make sense...
> > >
> > > IMHO all the mechanism around io_range_list is needed to provide the
> > > "mapping" between I/O tokens and physical CPU addresses.
> > >
> > > Currently the available tokens range from 0 to IO_SPACE_LIMIT.
> > >
> > > As you know the I/O memory accessors operate on whatever
> > > __of_address_to_resource sets into the resource (start, end).
> > >
> > > With this special device in place we cannot know if a resource is
> > > assigned with an I/O token or a physical address, unless we forbid
> > > the I/O tokens to be in a specific range.
> > >
> > > So this is why we are changing the offsets of all the functions
> > > handling io_range_list (to make sure that a range is forbidden to
> > > the tokens and is available to the physical addresses).
> > >
> > > We have chosen this forbidden range to be [0, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO)
> > > because this is the maximum physical I/O range that a non PCI device
> > > can operate on and because we believe this does not impose much
> > > restriction on the available I/O token range; that now is
> > > [PCIBIOS_MIN_IO, IO_SPACE_LIMIT].
> > > So we believe that the chosen forbidden range can accommodate
> > > any special ISA bus device with no much constraint on the rest
> > > of I/O tokens...
> > 
> > Your idea is a good one, however you are abusing PCIBIOS_MIN_IO and you
> > actually need another variable for "reserving" an area in the I/O space
> > that can be used for physical addresses rather than I/O tokens.
> > 
> > The one good example for using PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is when your
> > platform/architecture
> > does not support legacy ISA operations *at all*. In that case someone
> > sets the PCIBIOS_MIN_IO to a non-zero value to reserve that I/O range
> > so that it doesn't get used. With Zhichang's patch you now start
> > forcing
> > those platforms to have a valid address below PCIBIOS_MIN_IO.
> 
> But if PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is 0 then it means that all I/O space is to be used
> by PCI controllers only...

Nope, that is not what it means. It means that PCI devices can see I/O addresses
on the bus that start from 0. There never was any usage for non-PCI controllers
when PCIBIOS_MIN_IO != 0. That is what Zhichang is trying to do now and what
I think is not the right thing (and not enough anyway).

> so if you have a special bus device using
> an I/O range in this case should be a PCI controller...

That has always been the case. It is this series that wants to introduce the
new meaning.

> i.e. I would
> expect it to fall back into the case of I/O tokens redirection rather than
> physical addresses redirection (as mentioned below from my previous reply).
> What do you think?

I think you have looked too much at the code *with* Zhichang's patches applied.
Take a step back and look at how PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is used now, before you apply
the patches. It is all about PCI addresses and there is no notion of non-PCI
busses using PCI framework. Only platforms and architectures that try to work
around some legacy standards (ISA) or HW restrictions.

Best regards,
Liviu

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Gab
> 
> 
> > 
> > For the general case you also have to bear in mind that PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
> > could
> > be zero. In that case, what is your "forbidden" range? [0, 0) ? So it
> > makes
> > sense to add a new #define that should only be defined by those
> > architectures/
> > platforms that want to reserve on top of PCIBIOS_MIN_IO another region
> > where I/O tokens can't be generated for.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Liviu
> > 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Your current version has
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout)
> > \
> > > > > >                 arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops-
> > >devpara,\
> > > > > >                        addr, value, sizeof(type));
> > \
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Instead, just subtract the start of the range from the logical
> > > > > > port number to transform it back into a bus-local port number:
> > > > >
> > > > > These accessors do not operate on IO tokens:
> > > > >
> > > > > If (arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || arm64_extio_ops->end < addr)
> > > > > addr is not going to be an I/O token; in fact patch 2/3 imposes
> > that
> > > > > the I/O tokens will start at PCIBIOS_MIN_IO. So from 0 to
> > > > PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
> > > > > we have free physical addresses that the accessors can operate
> > on.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, I missed that part. I'd rather not use PCIBIOS_MIN_IO to refer
> > to
> > > > the logical I/O tokens, the purpose of that macro is really meant
> > > > for allocating PCI I/O port numbers within the address space of
> > > > one bus.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned above, special devices operate on CPU addresses
> > directly,
> > > not I/O tokens. For them there is no way to distinguish....
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Note that it's equally likely that whichever next platform needs
> > > > non-mapped I/O access like this actually needs them for PCI I/O
> > space,
> > > > and that will use it on addresses registered to a PCI host bridge.
> > >
> > > Ok so here you are talking about a platform that has got an I/O range
> > > under the PCI host controller, right?
> > > And this I/O range cannot be directly memory mapped but needs special
> > > redirections for the I/O tokens, right?
> > >
> > > In this scenario registering the I/O ranges with the forbidden range
> > > implemented by the current patch would still allow to redirect I/O
> > > tokens as long as arm64_extio_ops->start >= PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
> > >
> > > So effectively the special PCI host controller
> > > 1) knows the physical range that needs special redirection
> > > 2) register such range
> > > 3) uses pci_pio_to_address() to retrieve the IO tokens for the
> > >    special accessors
> > > 4) sets arm64_extio_ops->start/end to the IO tokens retrieved in 3)
> > >
> > > So to be honest I think this patch can fit well both with
> > > special PCI controllers that need I/O tokens redirection and with
> > > special non-PCI controllers that need non-PCI I/O physical
> > > address redirection...
> > >
> > > Thanks (and sorry for the long reply but I didn't know how
> > > to make the explanation shorter :) )
> > >
> > > Gab
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If we separate the two steps:
> > > >
> > > > a) assign a range of logical I/O port numbers to a bus
> > > > b) register a set of helpers for redirecting logical I/O
> > > >    port to a helper function
> > > >
> > > > then I think the code will get cleaner and more flexible.
> > > > It should actually then be able to replace the powerpc
> > > > specific implementation.
> > > >
> > > > 	Arnd
> > 
> > --
> > ====================
> > | I would like to |
> > | fix the world,  |
> > | but they're not |
> > | giving me the   |
> >  \ source code!  /
> >   ---------------
> >     ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Powered by blists - more mailing lists