Re: [Patch v7 4/7] PCI/ACPI: Add interface acpi_pci_root_create()

[Jiang Liu]

On 2015/11/6 18:37, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 09:52, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 2015/11/6 2:19, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:21:34PM +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>>> On 14.10.2015 08:29, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> +static void acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(struct device *dev,
>>>>> +                         struct list_head *resources,
>>>>> +                         unsigned long type)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    LIST_HEAD(list);
>>>>> +    struct resource *res1, *res2, *root = NULL;
>>>>> +    struct resource_entry *tmp, *entry, *entry2;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    BUG_ON((type & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)) == 0);
>>>>> +    root = (type & IORESOURCE_MEM) ? &iomem_resource :
>>>>> &ioport_resource;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    list_splice_init(resources, &list);
>>>>> +    resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &list) {
>>>>> +        bool free = false;
>>>>> +        resource_size_t end;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        res1 = entry->res;
>>>>> +        if (!(res1->flags & type))
>>>>> +            goto next;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        /* Exclude non-addressable range or non-addressable
>>>>> portion */
>>>>> +        end = min(res1->end, root->end);
>>>>> +        if (end <= res1->start) {
>>>>> +            dev_info(dev, "host bridge window %pR (ignored, not
>>>>> CPU addressable)\n",
>>>>> +                 res1);
>>>>> +            free = true;
>>>>> +            goto next;
>>>>> +        } else if (res1->end != end) {
>>>>> +            dev_info(dev, "host bridge window %pR ([%#llx-%#llx]
>>>>> ignored, not CPU addressable)\n",
>>>>> +                 res1, (unsigned long long)end + 1,
>>>>> +                 (unsigned long long)res1->end);
>>>>> +            res1->end = end;
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        resource_list_for_each_entry(entry2, resources) {
>>>>> +            res2 = entry2->res;
>>>>> +            if (!(res2->flags & type))
>>>>> +                continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +            /*
>>>>> +             * I don't like throwing away windows because then
>>>>> +             * our resources no longer match the ACPI _CRS, but
>>>>> +             * the kernel resource tree doesn't allow overlaps.
>>>>> +             */
>>>>> +            if (resource_overlaps(res1, res2)) {
>>>>> +                res2->start = min(res1->start, res2->start);
>>>>> +                res2->end = max(res1->end, res2->end);
>>>>> +                dev_info(dev, "host bridge window expanded to %pR;
>>>>> %pR ignored\n",
>>>>> +                     res2, res1);
>>>>> +                free = true;
>>>>> +                goto next;
>>>>> +            }
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +next:
>>>>> +        resource_list_del(entry);
>>>>> +        if (free)
>>>>> +            resource_list_free_entry(entry);
>>>>> +        else
>>>>> +            resource_list_add_tail(entry, resources);
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>> +    struct list_head *list = &info->resources;
>>>>> +    struct acpi_device *device = info->bridge;
>>>>> +    struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
>>>>> +    unsigned long flags;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    flags = IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM |
>>>>> IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT;
>>>>> +    ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, list,
>>>>> +                     acpi_dev_filter_resource_type_cb,
>>>>> +                     (void *)flags);
>>>>> +    if (ret < 0)
>>>>> +        dev_warn(&device->dev,
>>>>> +             "failed to parse _CRS method, error code %d\n", ret);
>>>>> +    else if (ret == 0)
>>>>> +        dev_dbg(&device->dev,
>>>>> +            "no IO and memory resources present in _CRS\n");
>>>>> +    else {
>>>>> +        resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, list) {
>>>>> +            if (entry->res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)
>>>>> +                resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
>>>>> +            else
>>>>> +                entry->res->name = info->name;
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +        acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
>>>>> +                         IORESOURCE_MEM);
>>>>> +        acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
>>>>> +                         IORESOURCE_IO);
>>>>
>>>> It is not clear to me why we need these two calls above ^^^. We are
>>>> using pci_acpi_root_add_resources(info) later. Is it not enough?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I cannot use acpi_pci_probe_root_resources() in my ARM64 PCI
>>>> driver. It is because acpi_dev_get_resources is adding
>>>> translation_offset to IO ranges start address and then:
>>>> acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
>>>>                  IORESOURCE_IO);
>>>> rejects that IO regions as it is out of my 0x0-SZ_16M window.
>>>>
>>>> Does acpi_pci_probe_root_resources meant to be x86 specific and I
>>>> should avoid using it?
>>>
>>> IIUC, you _have_ to have the proper translation_offset to map the bridge
>>> window into the IO address space:
>>>
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-June/348708.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Then, using the offset, you should do something ia64 does, namely,
>>> retrieve the CPU address corresponding to IO space (see
>>> arch/ia64/pci/pci.c
>>> - add_io_space()) and map it in the physical address space by using
>>> pci_remap_iospace(), it is similar to what we have to do with DT.
>>>
>>> It is extremely confusing and I am not sure I got it right myself,
>>> I am still grokking ia64 code to understand what it really does.
>>>
>>> So basically, the IO bridge window coming from acpi_dev_get_resource()
>>> should represent the IO space in 0 - 16M, IIUC.
>>>
>>> By using the offset (that was initialized using translation_offset) and
>>> the resource->start, you can retrieve the cpu address that you need to
>>> actually map the IO space, since that's what we do on ARM (ie the
>>> IO resource is an offset into the virtual address space set aside
>>> for IO).
>>>
>>> Confusing, to say the least. Jiang, did I get it right ?
>> Hi Lorenzo and Tomasz,
>>     With a cup of coffee, I got myself awake eventually:)
>> Now we are going to talk about IO port on IA64, really a little
>> complex:( Actually there are two types of translation.
>> 1) A PCI domain has a 24-bit IO port address space, there may
>> be multiple IO port address spaces in systems with multiple PCI
>> domains. So the first type of translation is to translate domain
>> specific IO port address into system global IO port address
>> (iomem_resource) by
>>    res->start = acpi_des->start + acpi_des->translation_offset
>>
>> 2) IA64 needs to map IO port address spaces into MMIO address
>> space because it has no instructions to access IO ports directly.
>> So IA64 has reserved a MMIO range to map IO port address spaces.
>> This type of translation relies on architecture specific information
>> instead of ACPI descriptors.
>>
>> On the other hand, ACPI specification has defined  "I/O to Memory
>> Translation" flag and "Memory to I/O Translation" flag in
>> ACPI Extended Address Space Descriptor,
> 
> Based on 2) and above, does it mean IA64 should use "ACPI Extended
> Address Space Descriptor" for its PCI bridge IO windows only?
> 
>  but current implementation
>> doesn't really support such a use case. So we need to find a way
>> out here. Could you please help to provide more information about
>> PCI host bridge resource descriptor implementation details on
>> ARM64?
>>
> 
> Sure, ARM64 (0-16M IO space) QEMU example:
> DWordIO (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode, EntireRange,
>          0x00000000,         // Granularity
>          0x00000000,         // Range Minimum
>          0x0000FFFF,         // Range Maximum
>          0x3EFF0000,         // Translation Offset
>          0x00010000,         // Length
>          ,, , TypeStatic)
The above DWordIO resource descriptor doesn't confirm to the ACPI spec.
According to my understanding, ARM/ARM64 has no concept of IO port
address space, so the PCI host bridge will map IO port on PCI side
onto MMIO on host side. In other words, PCI host bridge on ARM64
implement a IO Port->MMIO translation instead of a IO Port->IO Port
translation. If that's true, it should use 'TypeTranslation' instead
of 'TypeStatic'. And kernel ACPI resource parsing interface doesn't
support 'TypeTranslation' yet, so we need to find a solution for it.
Thanks,
Gerry

> 
> You can also have a look at my implementation example in mail to Lorenzo.
> 
> Thanks,
> 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/