Re: [RFC 2/4] PCI: generic: Add support for ARM64 and MSI(x)
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 14:31:45 EST
On Friday 10 October 2014 14:58:04 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds
> > > to my confusion:
> > >
> > > "[...] I think what we want here is for pci_start to be 0 when mmap_api ==
> > > PCI_MMAP_PROCFS.[...]"
> > >
> > > But that's not what the code does.
> > My best guess is that this is a typo and that Darrick meant PCI_MMAP_SYSFS
> > in the changelog, which is the same thing that the code does. It's also
> > the sensible thing to do.
> > This probably means that the procfs interface is now also broken on
> > sparc.
> > > I will try to grab an integrator board to give it a go.
> > Ok, good idea.
> Grabbed, tested it, my theory was correct, I can't map PCI resources
> to userspace. Actually, if I pass resource offset as a fixed-up address, mmap
> succeeds through proc, but it does not mmap the resource, it maps
> the resource + mem_offset that happens to be RAM :D for the PCI slot I am
> I am testing on an oldish (3.16) kernel since I am having trouble with
> mainline PCI and my network adapter on integrator, but I do not see why this
> is a problem, this bug has been there forever.
I would guess that almost the only users of the sysfs and procfs
interfaces are Xorg drivers, you certainly don't need it to get
a network adapter working.
> By removing mem_offset from pci_mmap_page_range() everything works fine,
> both proc and sys mappings are ok.
Ok, thanks for confirming!
> > However, given what you found, the procfs interface being broken since
> > 2010 on both architectures (arm32 and sparc) that try to honor the offset,
> > we should probably go back to your previous suggestion of removing
> > the offset handling, which would make it possible to use the procfs
> > interface and the sysfs interface on all architectures.
> > Would you be able to prepare a patch that does this and circulate that
> > with the sparc, powerpc and microblaze maintainers as well as Darrick
> > and Martin who were involved with the pci_mmap_fits change?
> Yes, but let's step back a second. I think that the proc interface
> should expect an offset as passed to the user in /proc/bus/pci/devices,
> and there the resource is exposed through pci_resource_to_user().
> Hence, the pci_mmap_fits() should check the offset against the
> resource filtered through pci_resource_to_user(), job done, patch
> is trivial, and does what pci_resource_to_user() was meant for IMHO.
My point was that there is no reason why sparc and powerpc should
do this differently. At the moment they do and sparc is broken
as you proved. We can either fix sparc to restore the old behavior
by adding pci_resource_to_user to pci_mmap_fits, or by making it
do what powerpc does, essentially removing the memory space handling
Whatever we do for sparc is probably what we need to do on ARM as well,
except that ARM has been broken for a longer time than sparc.
> Then we have to decide what to do with arm32 code:
> 1) we remove mem_offset from pci_mmap_page_range() (and rely on default
> 2) we provide pci_resource_to_user() for arm32 which does the CPU->bus
> conversion for us (and leave mem_offset as-is in pci_mmap_range())
I'd vote for 1) to get it in line with the only working architectures
that currently use a nonzero offset, but Russell needs to have the final
word on this, and I still think we have to involve the sparc and powerpc
maintainers as well, hoping to find a common solution for everybody.
Making a user space interface behave differently based on the CPU
architecture is a bad idea.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/