Message-ID: <har3enfw6i4nidve42gz6ser5esghn4jalvjhi5sajav2mcuyn@fjw53tb57h3n>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:22:10 +0800
From: YinFengwei <fengwei_yin@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	jie.li.linux@...ux.alibaba.com, renyu.zj@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/arm-cmn: don't claim resource during ioremap() for
 CMN700 with ACPI

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 01:16:13PM +0800, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2025-02-19 1:50 am, YinFengwei wrote:
> > Add Jing Zhang as we will continue discussion in this thread.
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:31:10PM +0800, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 2025-02-18 10:58 am, YinFengwei wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:31:42AM +0800, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > > > On 2025-02-18 1:21 am, Yin Fengwei wrote:
> > > > > > Currently, arm-cmn PMU driver assumes ACPI claim resource
> > > > > > for CMN600 + ACPI. But with CMN700 + ACPI, the device probe
> > > > > > failed because of resource claim failes when ioremap() is
> > > > > > called:
> > > > > > [   10.837300] arm-cmn ARMHC700:00: error -EBUSY: can't request region for resource [mem 0x40000000-0x4fffffff]
> > > > > > [   10.847310] arm-cmn ARMHC700:00: probe with driver arm-cmn failed with error -16
> > > > > > [   10.854726] arm-cmn ARMHC700:02: error -EBUSY: can't request region for resource [mem 0x40040000000-0x4004fffffff]
> > > > > > [   10.865085] arm-cmn ARMHC700:02: probe with driver arm-cmn failed with error -16
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Let CMN700 + ACPI do same as CMN600 + ACPI to allow CMN700
> > > > > > work in ACPI env.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, the CMN-600 routine is a special case for CMN-600 having two nested
> > > > > memory resources of its own. CMN-700 and everything else only have one
> > > > > memory resource, so that is not appropriate. What else is claiming the
> > > > > region to cause a conflict?
> > > > Sorry. Forgot the link for the new proposed fix:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z7QYlUP6nfBNMXsv@U-V2QX163P-2032.local/
> > > 
> > > Yes, I saw that. It's a broken diff that won't even compile, with no
> > > explanation of what it's supposed to be trying to achieve or why. I'm not
> > > sure what you're asking me to comment on.
> > My bad. I will attatch the full patch at the end of this mail.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > My understanding is that there are two problems here:
> > > > 1. ACPI claim the memory range and that's why we see this -EBUSY error
> > > >      with correct code path for CMN700 + ACPI table.
> > > 
> > > No, it's fine to claim the exact *same* range that the ACPI companion owns;
> > > the identical requests just nest inside each other. I don't have a CMN-700
> > > to hand but here's a selection of other drivers doing just that from
> > > /proc/iomem on my system:
> > > 
> > > 12600000-12600fff : ARMH0011:00
> > >    12600000-12600fff : ARMH0011:00 ARMH0011:00
> > > 12610000-12610fff : ARMH0011:01
> > >    12610000-12610fff : ARMH0011:01 ARMH0011:01
> > > 126b0000-126b0fff : APMC0D0F:00
> > >    126b0000-126b0fff : APMC0D0F:00 APMC0D0F:00
> > > 126f0000-126f0fff : APMC0D81:00
> > >    126f0000-126f0fff : APMC0D81:00 APMC0D81:00
> > I believe this works only for parents/children resource node. Otherwise,
> > there will be conflict.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by that. The point here is that these
> are simple devices with a single memory resource (just like CMN-700),
> where in each case, a driver using devm_{platform_}ioremap_resource()
> (just like arm-cmn) has happily claimed (2nd line) the same resource
> already defined by the ACPI layer (1st line). Admittedly it's a little
> unclear since they both use the same name, but still.
> 
> > > 
> > > And I know people are using the CMN-700 PMU on other ACPI systems without
> > > issue, so there's nothing wrong with the binding or the driver in general.
> > > 
> > > The resource conflict only arises when a request overlaps an existing region
> > > inexactly. Either your firmware is describing the CMN incorrectly, or some
> > > other driver is claiming conflicting iomem regions for some reason.
> > No. It's not ACPI table problem. The problem is mentioned in comments of
> > function arm_cmn600_acpi_probe():
> >          /*
> >           * Note that devm_ioremap_resource() is dumb and won't let the platform
> >           * device claim cfg when the ACPI companion device has already claimed
> >           * root within it. But since they *are* already both claimed in the
> >           * appropriate name, we don't really need to do it again here anyway.
> >           */
> 
> Sigh... No, this is unique to CMN-600, because only the CMN-600 ACPI
> binding depends on nested resources, such that the resource tree
> starts off looking like this:
> 
> 50000000-5fffffff : ARMHC600:00
>   50d00000-50d03fff : ARMHC600:00
> 
> If we wanted to, we can still quite happily claim the root node
> resource:
> 
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
> @@ -2410,6 +2410,8 @@ static int arm_cmn600_acpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, struct arm_cmn *c
> 
>         if (!resource_contains(cfg, root))
>                 swap(cfg, root);
> +
> +       devm_request_mem_region(cmn->dev, root->start, resource_size(root), "arm-cmn!");
>         /*
>          * Note that devm_ioremap_resource() is dumb and won't let the platform
>          * device claim cfg when the ACPI companion device has already claimed
> 
> 
> ...which then nests like so:
> 
> 50000000-5fffffff : ARMHC600:00
>   50d00000-50d03fff : ARMHC600:00
>     50d00000-50d03fff : arm-cmn!
Yes. You are correct. This demo explains thing clearly to me. Thanks.

Regards
Yin, Fengwei

> 
> but what we cannot do is claim the whole 50000000-5fffffff region again
> because that cannot nest within the existing 50d00000-50d03fff region.
> 
> > So I suppose for ACPI env, we should use devm_ioremap() as cmn600 does.
> > And make CMN700 handling follow spec exactly.
> 
> As I said, the driver already supports the CMN-700 APCI binding
> perfectly well. If your CMN is described correctly then you need to
> answer my question of what *other* driver is claiming conflicting
> resources and why (and if so, also why that should be specific to ACPI).
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists