Message-ID: <CAPw-ZT=rbM05RBxL8Ym8yZiF6C+8PxJx_xi8rCC1byrcAgfuVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:33:04 -0700
From:   Loc Ho <lho@....com>
To:     Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devel@...ica.org,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: SPCR: Use access width to determine mmio usage

Hi Jon,

>
> >> >>>>>> The current SPCR code does not check the access width of the mmio, and
> >> >>>>>> uses a default of 8bit register accesses.  This prevents devices that
> >> >>>>>> only do 16 or 32bit register accesses from working.  By simply checking
> >> >>>>>> this field and setting the mmio string appropriately, this issue can be
> >> >>>>>> corrected.  To prevent any legacy issues, the code will default to 8bit
> >> >>>>>> accesses if the value is anything but 16 or 32.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thanks for this. Just as an FYI I've a running discussion with Microsoft
> >> >>>>> about defining additional UART subtypes in the DBG2 for special case
> >> >>>>> UARTs. Specifically, I want to address AppliedMicro's special 8250 dw IP
> >> >>>>> that also has a non-standard clock. At this time, there is general
> >> >>>>> agreement to use the access width for some cases rather than defining
> >> >>>>> yet more subtypes - so your patch is good.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Loc/Applied: please track this thread, incorporate feedback, and also
> >> >>>>> track the other general recent discussions of 8250 dw from this week.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thanks for forward me this patch. This patch does not work with X-Gene
> >> >>>> v1 and v2 SoC's. As BIOS SPCR encodes these info as:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Bit Width: 32
> >> >>>> Bit Offset: 0
> >> >>>> Encoded Access Width: 01 (Byte Access)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> With this patch, it would use the "mmio" instead the "mmio32" as with
> >> >>>> this patch - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think this is why we need the DBG2 subtype for Applied X-Gene1. I'm
> >> >>> hoping the update to the SPCR/DBG2 spec is done soon.
> >> >>
> >> >> We can't rely on the BIOS change to support this new subtype as we
> >> >> have system that is already in production deployment. When these
> >> >> system upgrade to new version of the OS (stock, RHELSA, or whatever),
> >> >> they will break. We need the patch from
> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959/ rolled upstream.
> >> >
> >> > There is no reason why the patch you reference cannot co-exist with
> >> > the one I am submitting here.  In this case, my patch would set it to
> >> > mmio, then the patch you link above would reset it to mmio32.
> >> > Personally, I would recommend a big, fat comment on why this extra
> >> > step is necessary, but it should work as desired.  Alternatively, we
> >> > could add some kind of quirk library (similar to
> >> > qdf2400_erratum_44_present) where the OEM/OEM Table ID is referenced
> >> > and workaround applied.  Thoughts?
> >>
> >> That's was my first version but after seeing both versions, I think
> >> they are better solution as it works for more SoC's than just our. As
> >> you had suggested, we should apply your patch and
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959. The third patch -
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9462183/ - conflicts with your.
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >> 1. Applied your - https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/4/450
> >> 2. Applied this one - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959/
> >>
> >> -Loc
> >
> > What if we simply applied the following (100% untested) patch to add
> > the quirk framework I was suggesting?  It can be applied on top of the
> > patch I submitted previously.
>
> It is a bit more complex that this simple patch. How about this one
> (my original version). As for Jon Master question on McDivitt, not
> sure what they use for the ACPI table for SPCR. If they used our
> reference, then this might work for them too. This version would limit
> to just the existent firmware or until the SPCR table gets changed.
>
>
> tty: 8250: Workaround for APM X-Gene 8250 UART 32-alignment errata
>
> APM X-Gene verion 1 and 2 have an 8250 UART with its register
> aligned to 32-bit. The SPCR always assumes fully compatible
> 8250. This causes no console with ACPI boot as the console
> will not match X-Gene UART port due to the lack of mmio32
> option.
>
> Signed-off-by: Loc Ho <lho@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/spcr.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/spcr.c b/drivers/acpi/spcr.c
> index 3afa8c1..77b45a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/spcr.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/spcr.c
> @@ -36,6 +36,25 @@ static bool qdf2400_erratum_44_present(struct
> acpi_table_header *h)
>         return false;
>  }
>
> +/*
> + * APM X-Gene v1 and v2 UART hardware is an 16550 like device but has its
> + * register aligned to 32-bit. This function detects this errata condition.
> + */
> +static bool xgene_8250_erratum_present(struct acpi_table_spcr *tb)
> +{
> +       if (tb->interface_type != ACPI_DBG2_16550_COMPATIBLE)
> +               return false;
> +
> +       if (memcmp(tb->header.oem_id, "APMC0D", ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE))
> +               return false;
> +
> +       if (!memcmp(tb->header.oem_table_id, "XGENESPC",
> +                   ACPI_OEM_TABLE_ID_SIZE) && tb->header.oem_revision == 0)
> +               return true;
> +
> +       return false;
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * parse_spcr() - parse ACPI SPCR table and add preferred console
>   *
> @@ -115,6 +134,8 @@ int __init parse_spcr(bool earlycon)
>
>         if (qdf2400_erratum_44_present(&table->header))
>                 uart = "qdf2400_e44";
> +       if (xgene_8250_erratum_present(table))
> +               iotype = "mmio32";
>
>         snprintf(opts, sizeof(opts), "%s,%s,0x%llx,%d", uart, iotype,
>                  table->serial_port.address, baud_rate);
>

I didn't see a follow up email on this. What was the conclusion to
this patch series?

-Loc

Powered by blists - more mailing lists