Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86, pci, acpi: Move arch-agnostic MMCONFIG (aka ECAM) and ACPI code out of arch/x86/ directory
From: Tomasz Nowicki
Date: Fri Sep 11 2015 - 08:35:49 EST
On 11.09.2015 13:20, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:47:55PM +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
[...]
I think (but I am happy to be corrected) that the map_bus() hook
(ie that's why struct pci_bus is required in eg pci_generic_config_write)
is there to ensure that when the generic accessors are called
a) we have a valid bus b) the host controllers implementing it
has been initialized.
I had another look and I noticed you are trying to solve multiple
things at once:
1) ACPICA seems to need PCI config space on bus 0 to be working
before PCI enumerates (ie before we have a root bus), we need to
countercheck on that, but you can't use the generic PCI accessors
for that reasons (ie root bus might not be available, you do not
have a pci_bus struct)
2) the raw_pci_read/write require _generic_ mmio back-ends, since AMD
can't cope with standard x86 read/write{b,w,l}
Overall, it seems to me that we can avoid code duplication by
shuffling your code a bit.
You could modify the generic accessors in drivers/pci/access.c to
use your mmio back-end instead of using plain read/write{b,w,l}
functions (we should check if RobH is ok with that there can be
reasons that prevent this from happening). This would solve the
AMD mmio issue.
By factoring out the code that actually carries out the reads
and writes in the accessors basically you decouple the functions
requiring the struct pci_bus from the ones that does not require it
(ie raw_pci_{read/write}.
The generic MMIO layer belongs in the drivers/pci/access.c file, it has
nothing to do with ECAM.
The mmcfg interface should probably live in pci-acpi.c, I do not think
you need an extra file in there but that's a detail.
Basically the generic accessors would become something like eg:
int pci_generic_config_write(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
int where, int size, u32 val)
{
void __iomem *addr;
addr = bus->ops->map_bus(bus, devfn, where);
if (!addr)
return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
pci_mmio_write(size, addr + where, value);
return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
}
With that in place using raw_pci_write/read or the generic accessors
becomes almost identical, with code requiring the pci_bus to be
created using the generic accessors and ACPICA using the raw version.
I might be missing something, so apologies if that's the case.
Actually, I think you showed me the right direction :) Here are some
conclusions/comments/concerns. Please correct me if I am wrong:
1. We need raw_pci_write/read accessors (based on ECAM) for ARM64 too
but only up to the point where buses are enumerated. From that point on,
we should reuse generic accessors from access.c file, right?
Well, I still have not figured out whether on arm64 the raw accessors
required by ACPICA make sense.
So either arm64 relies on the generic MCFG based raw read and writes
or we define the global raw read and writes as empty (ie x86 overrides
them anyway).
I will get back to you on this.
2. For ARM64 ACPI PCI, we can use generic accessors right away, .map_bus
would call common code part (pci_dev_base()). The only thing that worry
me is fact that MCFG regions are RCU list so it needs rcu_read_lock()
for the .map_bus (mcfg lookup) *and* read/write operation.
Do you mean the address look-up and the mmio operation should be carried
out atomically right ?
Yes.
I have to review the MCFG descriptor locking anyway
to check if and when there is a problem here.
3. Changing generic accessors to introduce generic MMIO layer (because
of AMD issue) like this:
int pci_generic_config_write(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
int where, int size, u32 val)
{
void __iomem *addr;
addr = bus->ops->map_bus(bus, devfn, where);
if (!addr)
return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
pci_mmio_write(size, addr + where, val);
return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
}
would imply using those accessors for x86 ACPI PCI host bridge driver,
see arch/x86/pci/common.c
int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
int reg, int len, u32 *val)
{
if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
return raw_pci_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
return raw_pci_ext_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
return -EINVAL;
}
[...]
static int pci_read(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int where,
int size, u32 *value)
{
return raw_pci_read(pci_domain_nr(bus), bus->number,
devfn, where, size, value);
}
[...]
struct pci_ops pci_root_ops = {
.read = pci_read,
.write = pci_write,
};
Currently, the above code may call lots of different accessors (not
necessarily generic accessor friendly :), moreover it possible that x86
may have registered two accessor sets (raw_pci_ops, raw_pci_ext_ops). I
am happy to fix that but I would need x86 PCI expert to get know if that
is possible at all.
Well, we can let x86 code use the same pci_ops as they are using
today without bothering converting it to generic accessors.
Honestly, even the AMD requirement for special MMIO back-end could
be left in x86 code, which would simplify your task even more (it
would leave more x86 churn but that's not my call).
AMD special MMIO back-end was my optional goal and wanted to kill two
birds with one stone :) I will drop this in next version and focus on
main aspect of these patches.
Regards,
Tomasz
--
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/