Re: [PATCH V6 3/5] PCI: thunder-pem: Allow to probe PEM-specific register range for ACPI case

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:31:01PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:10:13AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > > Hi Lorenzo, Bjorn
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lorenzo Pieralisi [mailto:lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: 22 September 2016 10:50
> > > > To: Bjorn Helgaas
> > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel; Tomasz Nowicki; David Daney; Will Deacon; Catalin
> > > > Marinas; Rafael Wysocki; Arnd Bergmann; Hanjun Guo; Sinan Kaya;
> > > > Jayachandran C; Christopher Covington; Duc Dang; Robert Richter; Marcin
> > > > Wojtas; Liviu Dudau; Wangyijing; Mark Salter; linux-
> > > > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linaro ACPI
> > > > Mailman List; Jon Masters; Andrea Gallo; Jeremy Linton; liudongdong
> > > > (C); Gabriele Paoloni; Jeff Hugo; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/5] PCI: thunder-pem: Allow to probe PEM-
> > > > specific register range for ACPI case
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:04:57PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:05:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:17:44PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:09:25PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > None of these platforms can be fixed entirely in software, and
> > > > given
> > > > > > > > that we will not be adding quirks for new broken hardware, we
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > ask ourselves whether having two versions of a quirk, i.e., one
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > broken hardware + currently shipping firmware, and one for the
> > > > same
> > > > > > > > broken hardware with fixed firmware is really an improvement
> > > > over what
> > > > > > > > has been proposed here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're talking about two completely different types of quirks:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   1) MCFG quirks to use memory-mapped config space that doesn't
> > > > quite
> > > > > > >      conform to the ECAM model in the PCIe spec, and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   2) Some yet-to-be-determined method to describe address space
> > > > > > >      consumed by a bridge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The first two patches of this series are a nice implementation
> > > > for 1).
> > > > > > > The third patch (ThunderX-specific) is one possibility for 2),
> > > > but I
> > > > > > > don't like it because there's no way for generic software like
> > > > the
> > > > > > > ACPI core to discover these resources.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, so basically this means that to implement (2) we need to assign
> > > > > > some sort of _HID to these quirky PCI bridges (so that we know what
> > > > > > device they represent and we can retrieve their _CRS). I take from
> > > > > > this discussion that the goal is to make sure that all non-config
> > > > > > resources have to be declared through _CRS device objects, which is
> > > > > > fine but that requires a FW update (unless we can fabricate ACPI
> > > > > > devices and corresponding _CRS in the kernel whenever we match a
> > > > > > given MCFG table signature).
> > > > >
> > > > > All resources consumed by ACPI devices should be declared through
> > > > > _CRS.  If you want to fabricate ACPI devices or _CRS via kernel
> > > > > quirks, that's fine with me.  This could be triggered via MCFG
> > > > > signature, DMI info, host bridge _HID, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > I think the PNP quirk approach + PNP0c02 resource put forward by Gab
> > > > is enough.
> > > 
> > > Great thanks as we take a final decision I will ask Dogndgong to submit
> > > another RFC based on this approach
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > We discussed this already and I think we should make a decision:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-
> > > > March/414722.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to step back and come up with some understanding of
> > > > how
> > > > > > > > > non-broken firmware *should* deal with this issue.  Then, if
> > > > we *do*
> > > > > > > > > work around this particular broken firmware in the kernel, it
> > > > would be
> > > > > > > > > nice to do it in a way that fits in with that understanding.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For example, if a companion ACPI device is the preferred
> > > > solution, an
> > > > > > > > > ACPI quirk could fabricate a device with the required
> > > > resources.  That
> > > > > > > > > would address the problem closer to the source and make it
> > > > more likely
> > > > > > > > > that the rest of the system will work correctly: /proc/iomem
> > > > could
> > > > > > > > > make sense, things that look at _CRS generically would work
> > > > (e.g,
> > > > > > > > > /sys/, an admittedly hypothetical "lsacpi", etc.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hard-coding stuff in drivers is a point solution that doesn't
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > any guidance for future platforms and makes it likely that
> > > > the hack
> > > > > > > > > will get copied into even more drivers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, I see. But the guidance for future platforms should be 'do
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > rely on quirks', and what I am arguing here is that the more we
> > > > polish
> > > > > > > > up this code and make it clean and reusable, the more likely it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > that will end up getting abused by new broken hardware that we
> > > > set out
> > > > > > > > to reject entirely in the first place.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So of course, if the quirk involves claiming resources, let's
> > > > make
> > > > > > > > sure that this occurs in the cleanest and most compliant way
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > But any factoring/reuse concerns other than for the current
> > > > crop of
> > > > > > > > broken hardware should be avoided imo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If future hardware is completely ECAM-compliant and we don't need
> > > > any
> > > > > > > more MCFG quirks, that would be great.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But we'll still need to describe that memory-mapped config space
> > > > > > > somewhere.  If that's done with PNP0C02 or similar devices (as is
> > > > done
> > > > > > > on my x86 laptop), we'd be all set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you referring
> > > > > > to MCFG regions reported as PNP0c02 resources through its _CRS ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.  PCI Firmware Spec r3.0, Table 4-2, note 2 says address ranges
> > > > > reported via MCFG or _CBA should be reserved by _CRS of a PNP0C02
> > > > > device.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, that's agreed. It goes without saying that since you are quoting
> > > > the PCI spec, if FW fails to report MCFG regions in a PNP0c02 device
> > > > _CRS I will consider that a FW bug.
> > > > 
> > > > > > IIUC PNP0C02 is a reservation mechanism, but it does not help us
> > > > > > associate its _CRS to a specific PCI host bridge instance, right ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Gab proposed a hierarchy that *would* associate a PNP0C02 device with
> > > > > a PCI bridge:
> > > > >
> > > > >   Device (PCI1) {
> > > > >     Name (_HID, "HISI0080") // PCI Express Root Bridge
> > > > >     Name (_CID, "PNP0A03") // Compatible PCI Root Bridge
> > > > >     Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) { // Root complex resources
> > > > (windows) }
> > > > >     Device (RES0) {
> > > > >       Name (_HID, "HISI0081") // HiSi PCIe RC config base address
> > > > >       Name (_CID, "PNP0C02")  // Motherboard reserved resource
> > > > >       Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { ... }
> > > > >     }
> > > > >   }
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a possibility.  The PCI Firmware Spec suggests putting RES0 at
> > > > > the root (under \_SB), but I don't know why.
> > > > >
> > > > > Putting it at the root means we couldn't generically associate it
> > > > with
> > > > > a bridge, although I could imagine something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > >   Device (RES1) {
> > > > >     Name (_HID, "HISI0081") // HiSi PCIe RC config base address
> > > > >     Name (_CID, "PNP0C02")  // Motherboard reserved resource
> > > > >     Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () { ... }
> > > > >     Method (BRDG) { "PCI1" }  // hand-wavy ASL
> > > > >   }
> > > > >   Device (PCI1) {
> > > > >     Name (_HID, "HISI0080") // PCI Express Root Bridge
> > > > >     Name (_CID, "PNP0A03") // Compatible PCI Root Bridge
> > > > >     Method (_CRS, 0, Serialized) { // Root complex resources
> > > > (windows) }
> > > > >   }
> > > > >
> > > > > Where you could search PNP0C02 devices for a cookie that matched the
> > > > > host bridge.o
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I am fine with both and I think we are converging, but the way
> > > > to solve this problem has to be uniform for all ARM partners (and
> > > > not only ARM). Two points here:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) Adding a device/subdevice allows people to add a _CRS reporting the
> > > >    non-window bridge resources. Fine. It also allows people to chuck in
> > > >    there all sorts of _DSD properties to describe their PCI host bridge
> > > >    as it is done with DT properties (those _DSD can contain eg clocks
> > > >    etc.), this may be tempting (so that they can reuse the same DT
> > > >    driver and do not have to update their firmware) but I want to be
> > > >    clear here: that must not happen. So, a subdevice with a _CRS to
> > > >    report resources, yes, but it will stop there.
> > > > 2) It is unclear to me how to formalize the above. People should not
> > > >    write FW by reading the PCI mailing list, so these guidelines have
> > > > to
> > > >    be written, somehow. I do not want to standardize quirks, I want
> > > >    to prevent random ACPI table content, which is different.
> > > >    Should I report this to the ACPI spec working group ? If we do
> > > >    not do that everyone will go solve this problem as they deem fit.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Do we really need to formalize this?
> > > 
> > > As we discussed in the Linaro call at the moment we have few vendors
> > > that need quirks and we want to avoid promoting/accepting quirks for
> > > the future.
> > > 
> > > At the time of the call I think we decided to informally accept a set
> > > of quirks for the current platforms and reject any other quirk coming
> > > after a certain date/kernel version (this to be decided).
> > > 
> > > I am not sure if there is a way to document/formalize a temporary
> > > exception from the rule...
> > 
> > - (1) will be enforced.
> 
> I'm not sure it's necessary or possible to enforce a "no future
> quirks" rule.  For one thing, there's already a pretty strong
> incentive to avoid quirks: if your hardware doesn't require quirks,
> it works with OSes already in the field.
> 
> MCFG quirks allow us to use the generic ACPI pci_root.c driver even if
> the hardware doesn't support ECAM quite according to the spec.
> 
> PNP0C02 usage is a workaround for the failure of the Consumer/Producer
> bit.  PNP0C02 quirks compensate for firmware that doesn't describe
> resource usage accurately.  It's possible the ACPI spec folks could
> come up with a better Consumer/Producer workaround, if that's needed.
> Apparently x86 hasn't needed it yet.
> 
> If people add _DSD methods for clocks or whatnot, the hardware won't
> work with the generic pci_root.c driver, so there's already an
> incentive for avoiding them.  x86 has managed without such methods;
> arm64 should be able to do the same.

Re-reading this, I'm afraid my response sounds a little dismissive,
and I feel like I'm missing some important information.  So I
apologize if I missed your whole point, Lorenzo.

Bjorn