Re: [PATCH 3/5] PCI: st: Provide support for the sti PCIe controller

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 19 January 2015 13:37:33 Gabriel Fernandez wrote:
> On 17 December 2014 at 23:14, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 December 2014 11:34:44 Gabriel FERNANDEZ wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * On ARM platforms, we actually get a bus error returned when the PCIe
> > IP
> > > + * returns a UR or CRS instead of an OK.
> > > + */
> > > +static int st_pcie_abort_
> > ââ
> > handler(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr,
> > > +                              struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > +     return 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > You should check that it's actually PCI that caused the abort. Don't
> > just ignore a hard error condition.
> >
> > Usually there are registers in the PCI core that let you identify what
> > happened.
> >
> 
> â
> We return 0 because abort handler is not activated during boot.
> 

Can you just remove the handler then? We should never have exception
handlers that unconditionally return 0.

> > > +      * we must retry for up to a second before we decide the device is
> > > +      * dead. If we are still dead then we assume there is nothing
> > there and
> > > +      * return ~0
> > > +      *
> > > +      * The downside of this is that we incur a delay of 1s for every
> > pci
> > > +      * express link that doesn't have a device connected.
> > > +      */
> > > +     if (((where & ~3) == 0) && devfn == 0 && (data == 0 || data ==
> > ~0)) {
> > > +             if (retry_count++ < 1000) {
> > > +                     mdelay(1);
> > > +                     goto retry;
> > > +             } else {
> > > +                     *val = ~0;
> > > +                     return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> > > +             }
> > > +     }
> > > +
> > > +     *val = data;
> > > +     return ret;
> > > +}
> >
> > A busy-loop is extremely nasty. If this is only during the initial bus
> > scan, could you use an msleep instead?
> >
> > âyes it's during the initial bus scan.
> But we can't use msleep because we are under raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
> see PCI_OP_READ() macro in drivers/pci/access.c

Ah, I see. Better use a loop with 'time_before()' and a much shorter
delay then. Even a single mdelay(1) with irqs disabled can be annoying,
so try to make the time as short as possible.

> > Also, it sounds like the error you get is actually the fault that you
> > are catching above. If this is correct, then use the fault handler to
> > communicate this to the probe function.
> >
> 
> âSame as above the handler is not activated during the boot and initial bus
> scan.â

Maybe you could enable the handler during boot to catch this case, and
then disable it later?

> >
> > > +static void st_msi_init_one(struct pcie_port *pp)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct st_pcie *pcie = to_st_pcie(pp);
> > > +
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * Set the magic address the hardware responds to. This has to be
> > in
> > > +      * the range the PCI controller can write to.
> > > +      */
> > > +     dw_pcie_msi_init(pp);
> > > +
> > > +     if ((virt_to_phys((void *)pp->msi_data) < pcie->lmi->start) ||
> > > +         (virt_to_phys((void *)pp->msi_data) > pcie->lmi->end))
> > > +             dev_err(pp->dev, "MSI addr miss-configured\n");
> > > +}
> >
> > Why do you call virt_to_phys() here? Isn't
> > ââ
> > msi_data a physical address?
> >
> â?
> 
> â
> msi_data is a virtual address, it's obtained through a   __get_free_pages()
> function in dw_pcie_msi_init() procedure.

I guess you need dma_map_single() then, or use dma_alloc_coherent instead
of __get_free_pages(). There is no guarantee that the page you allocate
there is actually visible to the PCI host at the same address that the CPU
uses, so you need to map from a CPU address to a DMA address that the PCI
host bridge uses.

	Arnd
--
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/