Re: [PATCH] ACPI: SPCR: Use access width to determine mmio usage

[Loc Ho]

Hi Jon,

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jon Mason <jon.mason@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Loc Ho <lho@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The current SPCR code does not check the access width of the mmio, and
>>>>>> uses a default of 8bit register accesses.  This prevents devices that
>>>>>> only do 16 or 32bit register accesses from working.  By simply checking
>>>>>> this field and setting the mmio string appropriately, this issue can be
>>>>>> corrected.  To prevent any legacy issues, the code will default to 8bit
>>>>>> accesses if the value is anything but 16 or 32.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for this. Just as an FYI I've a running discussion with Microsoft
>>>>> about defining additional UART subtypes in the DBG2 for special case
>>>>> UARTs. Specifically, I want to address AppliedMicro's special 8250 dw IP
>>>>> that also has a non-standard clock. At this time, there is general
>>>>> agreement to use the access width for some cases rather than defining
>>>>> yet more subtypes - so your patch is good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Loc/Applied: please track this thread, incorporate feedback, and also
>>>>> track the other general recent discussions of 8250 dw from this week.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for forward me this patch. This patch does not work with X-Gene
>>>> v1 and v2 SoC's. As BIOS SPCR encodes these info as:
>>>>
>>>> Bit Width: 32
>>>> Bit Offset: 0
>>>> Encoded Access Width: 01 (Byte Access)
>>>>
>>>> With this patch, it would use the "mmio" instead the "mmio32" as with
>>>> this patch - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959
>>>
>>> I think this is why we need the DBG2 subtype for Applied X-Gene1. I'm
>>> hoping the update to the SPCR/DBG2 spec is done soon.
>>
>> We can't rely on the BIOS change to support this new subtype as we
>> have system that is already in production deployment. When these
>> system upgrade to new version of the OS (stock, RHELSA, or whatever),
>> they will break. We need the patch from
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959/ rolled upstream.
>
> There is no reason why the patch you reference cannot co-exist with
> the one I am submitting here.  In this case, my patch would set it to
> mmio, then the patch you link above would reset it to mmio32.
> Personally, I would recommend a big, fat comment on why this extra
> step is necessary, but it should work as desired.  Alternatively, we
> could add some kind of quirk library (similar to
> qdf2400_erratum_44_present) where the OEM/OEM Table ID is referenced
> and workaround applied.  Thoughts?

That's was my first version but after seeing both versions, I think
they are better solution as it works for more SoC's than just our. As
you had suggested, we should apply your patch and
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959. The third patch -
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9462183/ - conflicts with your.

Summary:
1. Applied your - https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/4/450
2. Applied this one - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9460959/

-Loc