Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: Added link up check in map_bus of dw_child_pcie_ops

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:24 AM Gustavo Pimentel
<Gustavo.Pimentel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:5:41, Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lorenzo,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your comments!
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: 2020年9月28日 17:39
> > > To: Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; PCI
> > > <linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Michael Walle
> > > <michael@xxxxxxxx>; Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: Added link up check in map_bus of
> > > dw_child_pcie_ops
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:24:47AM +0000, Z.q. Hou wrote:
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for your comments!
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: 2020年9月18日 23:28
> > > > > To: Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; PCI <linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > > > Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>; Bjorn Helgaas
> > > > > <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>; Gustavo Pimentel
> > > > > <gustavo.pimentel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Michael Walle
> > > <michael@xxxxxxxx>;
> > > > > Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: Added link up check in map_bus of
> > > > > dw_child_pcie_ops
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:02 AM Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@xxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for your comments!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sent: 2020年9月17日 4:29
> > > > > > > To: Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; PCI
> > > > > > > <linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Lorenzo Pieralisi
> > > > > > > <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>; Bjorn Helgaas
> > > > > > > <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>; Gustavo Pimentel
> > > > > > > <gustavo.pimentel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Michael Walle
> > > > > <michael@xxxxxxxx>;
> > > > > > > Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: Added link up check in map_bus of
> > > > > > > dw_child_pcie_ops
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:49 PM Zhiqiang Hou
> > > > > <Zhiqiang.Hou@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On NXP Layerscape platforms, it results in SError in the
> > > > > > > > enumeration of the PCIe controller, which is not connecting
> > > > > > > > with an Endpoint device. And it doesn't make sense to
> > > > > > > > enumerate the Endpoints when the PCIe link is down. So this
> > > > > > > > patch added the link up check to avoid to fire configuration
> > > transactions on link down bus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael reported the same issue as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What happens if the link goes down between the check and the
> > > access?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch cannot cover this case, and will get the SError.
> > > > > > But I think it makes sense to avoid firing transactions on link down bus.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's impossible to do without a race even in h/w.
> > > >
> > > > Agree.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a racy check. I'd like to find an alternative solution.
> > > > > > > It's even worse if Layerscape is used in ECAM mode. I looked at
> > > > > > > the EDK2 setup for layerscape[1] and it looks like root ports
> > > > > > > are just skipped if link
> > > > > is down.
> > > > > > > Maybe a link down just never happens once up, but if so, then we
> > > > > > > only need to check it once and fail probe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many customers connect the FPGA Endpoint, which may establish PCIe
> > > > > > link after the PCIe enumeration and then rescan the PCIe bus, so I
> > > > > > think it should not exit the probe of root port even if there is
> > > > > > not link up
> > > > > during enumeration.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a good reason. I want to unify the behavior here as it varies
> > > > > per platform currently and wasn't sure which way to go.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I've dug into this a bit more and am curious about the
> > > > > > > PCIE_ABSERR register setting which is set to:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #define PCIE_ABSERR_SETTING 0x9401 /* Forward error of
> > > > > > > non-posted request */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems to me this is not what we want at least for config
> > > > > > > accesses, but commit 84d897d6993 where this was added seems to
> > > > > > > say otherwise. Is it not possible to configure the response per access
> > > type?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for your investigation!
> > > > > > The story is like this: Some customers worry about these silent
> > > > > > error (DWC PCIe IP won't forward the error of outbound non-post
> > > > > > request by default), so we were pushed to enable the error
> > > > > > forwarding to AXI in the commit
> > > > > > 84d897d6993 as you saw. But it cannot differentiate the config
> > > > > > transactions from the MEM_rd, except the Vendor ID access, which
> > > > > > is controlled by a separate bit and it was set to not forward
> > > > > > error of access
> > > > > of Vendor ID.
> > > > > > So we think it's okay to enable the error forwarding, the SError
> > > > > > should not occur, because after the enumeration it won't access
> > > > > > the
> > > > > non-existent functions.
> > > > >
> > > > > We've rejected upstream support for platforms aborting on config
> > > > > accesses[1]. I think there's clear consensus that aborting is the
> > > > > wrong behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do MEM_wr errors get forwarded? Seems like that would be enough.
> > > > > Also, wouldn't page faults catch most OOB accesses anyways? You need
> > > > > things page aligned anyways with an IOMMU and doing userspace access
> > > > > or guest assignment.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, errors of MEM_wr can be forwarded.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's another idea, how about only enabling forwarding errors if
> > > > > the link is up? If really would need to be configured any time the
> > > > > link state changes rather than just at probe. I'm not sure if you
> > > > > have a way to disable it on link down though.
> > > >
> > > > Dug deeper into this issue and found the setting of not forwarding
> > > > error of non-existent Vender ID access counts on the link partner: 1.
> > > > When there is a link partner (namely link up), it will return 0xffff
> > > > when read non-existent function Vendor ID and won't forward error to
> > > > AXI.  2. When no link partner (link down), it will forward the error
> > > > of reading non-existent function Vendor ID to AXI and result in
> > > > SError.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a DWC PCIe IP specific issue but not get feedback from
> > > > design team.  I'm thinking to disable this error forwarding just like
> > > > other platforms, since when these errors (UR, CA and CT) are detected,
> > > > AER driver can also report the error and try to recover.
> > >
> > > I take this as you shall send a patch to fix this issue shortly, is this correct ?
> >
> > The issue becomes complex:
> > I reviewed the DWC PCIe databook of verion 4.40a which is used on Layerscape platforms, and it said that " Your RC application should not generate CFG requests until it has confirmed that the link is up by sampling the smlh_link_up and rmlh_link_up outputs".
> > So, the link up checking should not be remove before each outbound CFG access.
> > Gustavo, can you share more details on the link up checking? Does it only exist in the 4.40a?
>
> Hi Zhiqiang,
>
> According to the information that I got from the IP team you are correct,
> the same requirement still exists on the newer IP versions.

How is that possible in a race free way?

Testing on meson and layerscape (with the forwarding of errors
disabled) shows a link check is not needed. But then dra7xx seems to
need one (or has some f/w setup).

Rob