Re: [PATCH V7 00/11] Support for generic ACPI based PCI host controller

[Jon Masters]

Additional: I would like to thank Ard for suggesting this approach. It turns out (apparently) that Mark Salter's initial X-Gene quirks internal to RH did it this way as well. You great minds think alike. If this works for folks then I hope it leads to upstream kernel support in F25 (we have a bunch of Moonshot hardware we would like to deeply in Fedora but can't without the PCIe network...). I rant only because I care :)

Jon.

-- 
Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone

> On May 23, 2016, at 21:11, Jon Masters <jcm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Bjorn,
> 
> Out walking so sorry about top posting. Quick reply though:
> 
> 1. I checked with the Windows team. They usually avoid quirks entirely but when it has happened, it has been done via the MCFG/FADT not DSDT.
> 
> 2. They would be ok if we were to key off the OEM  name and revision for the IP in the MCFG table.
> 
> 3. I have already verified existing shipping ARMv8 systems provide enough unique data in that entry, and have asked that vendors guarantee to rev it in future IP (which I will verify on models pre tapeout and certainly in early firmware builds). One vendor has a platform that isn't public yet that uses a non-public name in the MCFG but I spoke with them on Friday and they will shortly update their firmware so that a quirk could be posted.
> 
> 4. I have requested (and Linaro are investigating) that Linaro (with ARM's assistance) begin to drive a separate thread around upstreaming (independent of this core effort) quirks that use the OEM fields in the MCFG as a more scalable approach than one per platform via DMI.
> 
> 5. I will drive a clarification to the SBBR that does not encourage or endorse quirks but does merely reinforce that data must be unique in such tables. I am driving a separate series of conversations with vendors to ensure that this is the case on all future platforms - though just generally, there is no more high end top shelf "Xeon class" silicon needing common quirks in the pipeline.
> 
> More later.
> 
> Jon.
> 
> -- 
> Computer Architect | Sent from my 64-bit #ARM Powered phone
> 
>>> On May 23, 2016, at 19:39, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 03:16:01PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
>>> Hi Lorenzo
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lorenzo Pieralisi [mailto:lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: 23 May 2016 11:57
>>>> To: Ard Biesheuvel
>>>> Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; Jon Masters; Tomasz Nowicki; helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
>>>> arnd@xxxxxxxx; will.deacon@xxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx;
>>>> rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx; okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>> jchandra@xxxxxxxxxxxx; linaro-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>>>> pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dhdang@xxxxxxx; Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx;
>>>> ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx; linux-
>>>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>> robert.richter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx;
>>>> msalter@xxxxxxxxxx; Wangyijing; mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>> andrea.gallo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 00/11] Support for generic ACPI based PCI host
>>>> controller
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:14:03AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>> On 20 May 2016 at 10:40, Gabriele Paoloni
>>>> <gabriele.paoloni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ard
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is the PCIe root complex so special that you cannot simply
>>>> describe an
>>>>>>> implementation that is not PNP0408 compatible as something else,
>>>> under
>>>>>>> its own unique HID? If everybody is onboard with using ACPI, how
>>>> is
>>>>>>> this any different from describing other parts of the platform
>>>>>>> topology? Even if the SBSA mandates generic PCI, they already
>>>> deviated
>>>>>>> from that when they built the hardware, so pretending that it is a
>>>>>>> PNP0408 with quirks really does not buy us anything.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From my understanding we want to avoid this as this would allow
>>>> each
>>>>>> vendor to come up with his own code and it would be much more
>>>> effort
>>>>>> for the PCI maintainer to rework the PCI framework to accommodate
>>>> X86
>>>>>> and "all" ARM64 Host Controllers...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess this approach is too risky and we want to avoid this.
>>>> Through
>>>>>> standardization we can more easily maintain the code and scale it
>>>> to
>>>>>> multiple SoCs...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So this is my understanding; maybe Jon, Tomasz or Lorenzo can give
>>>>>> a bit more explanation...
>>>>> 
>>>>> OK, so that boils down to recommending to vendors to represent known
>>>>> non-compliant hardware as compliant, just so that we don't have to
>>>>> change the code to support additional flavors of ECAM ? It's fine to
>>>>> be pragmatic, but that sucks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We keep confusing the x86 case with the ARM case here: for x86, they
>>>>> needed to deal with broken hardware *after* the fact, and all they
>>>>> could do is find /some/ distinguishing feature in order to guess
>>>> which
>>>>> exact hardware they might be running on. For arm64, it is the
>>>> opposite
>>>>> case. We are currently in a position where we can demand vendors to
>>>>> comply with the standards they endorsed themselves, and (ab)using
>>>> ACPI
>>>>> + DMI as a de facto platform description rather than plain ACPI makes
>>>>> me think the DT crowd were actually right from the beginning. It
>>>>> *directly* violates the standardization principle, since it requires
>>>> a
>>>>> priori knowledge inside the OS that a certain 'generic' device must
>>>> be
>>>>> driven in a special way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So can anyone comment on the feasibility of adding support for
>>>> devices
>>>>> with vendor specific HIDs (and no generic CIDs) to the current ACPI
>>>>> ECAM driver in Linux?
>> 
>> I don't think of ECAM support itself as a "driver".  It's just a
>> service available to drivers, similar to OF resource parsing.
>> 
>> Per PCI Firmware r3.2, sec 4.1.5, "PNP0A03" means a PCI/PCI-X/PCIe
>> host bridge.  "PNP0A08" means a PCI-X Mode 2 or PCIe bridge that
>> supports extended config space.  It doesn't specify how we access that
>> config space, so I think hardware with non-standard ECAM should still
>> have PNP0A03 and PNP0A08 in _CID or _HID.
>> 
>> "ECAM" as used in the specs (PCIe r3.0, sec 7.2.2, and PCI Firmware
>> r3.2, sec 4.1) means:
>> 
>> (a) a memory-mapped model for config space access, and
>> (b) a specific mapping of address bits to bus/device/function/
>>     register
>> 
>> MCFG and _CBA assume both (a) and (b), so I think a device with
>> non-standard ECAM mappings should not be described in MCFG or _CBA.
>> 
>> If a bridge has ECAM with non-standard mappings, I think either a
>> vendor-specific _HID or a device-specific method, e.g., _DSM, could
>> communicate that.
>> 
>> Jon, I agree that we should avoid describing non-standardized hardware
>> in Linux-specific ways.  Is there a mechanism in use already?  How
>> does Windows handle this?  DMI is a poor long-term solution because it
>> requires ongoing maintenance for new platforms, but I think it's OK
>> for getting started with platforms already shipping.
>> 
>> A _DSM has the advantage that once it is defined and supported, OEMs
>> can ship new platforms without requiring a new quirk or a new _HID to
>> be added to a driver.
>> 
>> There would still be the problem of config access before the namespace
>> is available, i.e., the MCFG use case.  I don't know how important
>> that is.  Defining an MCFG extension seems like the most obvious
>> solution.
>> 
>> If we only expect a few non-standard devices, maybe it's enough to
>> have DMI quirks to statically set up ECAM and just live with the
>> inconvenience of requiring a kernel change for every new non-standard
>> device.
>> 
>>>> Host bridges in ACPI are handled through PNP0A08/PNP0A03 ids, and
>>>> most of the arch specific code is handled in the respective arch
>>>> directories (X86 and IA64, even though IA64 does not rely on ECAM/MCFG
>>>> for
>>>> PCI ops), it is not a driver per-se, PNP0A08/PNP0A03 are detected
>>>> through
>>>> ACPI scan handlers and the respective arch code (ie pci_acpi_scan_root)
>>>> sets-up resources AND config space on an arch specific basis.
>>>> 
>>>> X86 deals with that with code in arch/x86 that sets-up the pci_raw_ops
>>>> on a platform specific basis (and it is not nice, but it works because
>>>> as you all know the number of platforms in X86 world is contained).
>>>> 
>>>> Will this happen for ARM64 in arch/arm64 based on vendor specific
>>>> HIDs ?
>>>> 
>>>> No.
>>>> 
>>>> So given the current state of play (we were requested to move the
>>>> arch/arm64 specific ACPI PCI bits to arch/arm64), we would end up
>>>> with arch/arm64 code requiring code in /drivers to set-up pci_ops
>>>> in a platform specific way, it is horrible, if feasible at all.
>>>> 
>>>> The only way this can be implemented is by pretending that the
>>>> ACPI/PCI arch/arm64 implementation is generic code (that's what this
>>>> series does), move it to /drivers (where it is in this series), and
>>>> implement _DSD vendor specific bindings (per HID) to set-up the pci
>>>> operations; whether this solution should go upstream, given that it
>>>> is just a short-term solution for early platforms bugs, it is another
>>>> story and my personal answer is no.
>> 
>> It seems like there should be a way to look for a _DSM before we call
>> acpi_pci_root_get_mcfg_addr() to look for _CBA.
>> 
>> Currently we call acpi_pci_root_get_mcfg_addr() (to read _CBA) from
>> the generic acpi_pci_root_add(), but the result (root->mcfg_addr) is
>> only used in x86-specific code.  I think it would be nicer if the
>> lookup and the use were together.  Then it would be easier to override
>> it because the mapping assumptions would all be in one place.
>> 
>>> I think it shouldn't be too bad to move quirk handling mechanism to
>>> arch/arm64. Effectively we would not move platform specific code into
>>> arch/arm64 but just the mechanism checking if there is any quirk that
>>> is defined.
>>> 
>>> i.e.:
>>> 
>>> extern struct pci_cfg_fixup __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups[];
>>> extern struct pci_cfg_fixup __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups[];
>>> 
>>> static struct pci_ecam_ops *pci_acpi_get_ops(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
>>> {
>>>       int bus_num = root->secondary.start;
>>>       int domain = root->segment;
>>>       struct pci_cfg_fixup *f;
>>> 
>>>       /*
>>>        * Match against platform specific quirks and return corresponding
>>>        * CAM ops.
>>>        *
>>>        * First match against PCI topology <domain:bus> then use DMI or
>>>        * custom match handler.
>>>        */
>>>       for (f = __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f < __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f++) {
>>>               if ((f->domain == domain || f->domain == PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY) &&
>>>                   (f->bus_num == bus_num || f->bus_num == PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY) &&
>>>                   (f->system ? dmi_check_system(f->system) : 1) &&
>>>                   (f->match ? f->match(f, root) : 1))
>>>                       return f->ops;
>>>       }
>>>       /* No quirks, use ECAM */
>>>       return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Such quirks will be defined anyway in drivers/pci/host/ in the vendor
>>> specific quirk implementations.
>>> 
>>> e.g. in HiSilicon case we would have
>>> 
>>> DECLARE_ACPI_MCFG_FIXUP(NULL, hisi_pcie_match, &hisi_pcie_ecam_ops,
>>>           PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY, PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY);
>>> 
>>> in "drivers/pci/host/pcie-hisi-acpi.c "
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Gab
>> 
>> Sorry Gab, I guess I was really responding to earlier messages :)
>> 
>> I don't really have much to say here, except that it doesn't seem
>> right to have an MCFG that describes a non-standard ECAM mapping.
>> I suppose there's already firmware in the field that does that,
>> though?
>> 
>> Bjorn