Re: [PATCH v2 10/15] cxl/region: Use root decoders interleaving parameters to create a region

[Gregory Price]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 09:59:45PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote:
> I have discovered on my Zen5 that either this code is incorrect, or my
> decoders are programmed incorrectly.
> 
> decoderN.M  |  ig  iw
> ----------------------
> decoder0.0  |  2   256
> decoder3.0  |  1   256
> decoder6.0  |  1   256
> region0     |  2   512 <--- Wrong
> 
> *Arch quirk aside*, everything except region is as expected.
>
... snip ...
> 
> Looking at a normal system, we'd expect this configuration:
> 
> decoderN.M  |  ig  iw
> ----------------------
> decoder0.0  |  2   256
> decoder3.0  |  1   512
> decoder6.0  |  2   256
> 
> The above code produces the following:
> 	[1,512]
> 	[2,1024] <--- still wrong
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Can we not just always report the parent ways/granularity, and skip all
> the math?  We'll always iterate to the root, and that's what we want the
> region to match, right?
> 
> Better yet, can we not just do this in the region creation code, rather
> than having the endpoint carry it through to the region for some reason?
> Avoid adding the duplicate ways/granularity field all together.
> 

Having tested just using the root decoder data, i now get the expected
1:512, but i realized the issue is also that the regionref uses the
endpoint->decoder interleave ways/granularity

Before:
[]cxl region0: pci0000:d2:port1 cxl_port_setup_targets expected
               iw: 1 ig: 1024   [... snip ...]
[]cxl region0: pci0000:d2:port1 cxl_port_setup_targets got
               iw: 1 ig: 256    [... snip ...]

After:
[]cxl region0: pci0000:d2:port1 cxl_port_setup_targets expected
               iw: 1 ig: 512 
[]cxl region0: pci0000:d2:port1 cxl_port_setup_targets got 
               iw: 1 ig: 256

This makes sense, as the Zen5 quirk here is that the endpoints are
programmed with a 0-base for just their capacity, and they have no
interleave set on them - while the host bridges have 1:256 to match
the endpoint and 2:256 in the root is the only "correct" (in-spec)
programming of the topology.

I think the only choice here is to have another arch_check_interleave()
check here in `cxl_port_setup_targets()` that checks for this.  I
haven't run the numbers on what the results would be if the HB had 1:512
instead of 1:256, but I imagine there lies another round of madness.

~Gregory