linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] drivers/perf: add DesignWare PCIe PMU driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220927110305.000079cc@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:03:05 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC:     Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>, <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        <robin.murphy@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, <zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] drivers/perf: add DesignWare PCIe PMU driver

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:18:57 -0500
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:31:34PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
> > 在 2022/9/23 PM11:54, Jonathan Cameron 写道:  
> > >> I found a similar definition in arch/ia64/pci/pci.c .
> > >>
> > >> 	#define PCI_SAL_ADDRESS(seg, bus, devfn, reg)		\
> > >> 	(((u64) seg << 24) | (bus << 16) | (devfn << 8) | (reg))
> > >>
> > >> Should we move it into a common header first?  
> > > 
> > > Maybe. The bus, devfn, reg part is standard bdf, but I don't think
> > > the PCI 6.0 spec defined a version with the seg in the upper bits.
> > > I'm not sure if we want to adopt that in LInux.  
> > 
> > I found lots of code use seg,bus,devfn,reg with format "%04x:%02x:%02x.%x",
> > I am not quite familiar with PCIe spec. What do you think about it, Bjorn?  
> 
> The PCIe spec defines an address encoding for bus/device/function/reg
> for the purposes of ECAM (PCIe r6.0, sec 7.2.2), but as far as I know,
> it doesn't define anything similar that includes the segment.  The
> segment is really outside the scope of PCIe because each segment is a
> completely separate PCIe hierarchy.

It's beginning to get exposed in PCIe 6.0 as a result of enabling cross
segment messages. Two places I know of that the segment can be seen in.
Captured TLP headers with certain AER reported errors.
Hierarchy ID Extended capability - this one takes some digging.
Specifically 7.9.17.3 Hierarchy ID Data Register which if you follow 
link to 6.25 includes Segment Group Number. 

Anyhow, not particularly relevant here and it never occurs next to
any of the BDF stuff but it is now (just about) in scope of PCIe.

Jonathan


> 
> So I probably wouldn't make this a generic definition.  But if/when
> you print things like this out, please do use the format spec you
> mentioned above so it matches the style used elsewhere.
> 
> Bjorn