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

From: [email-masked] (Bjorn Helgaas)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:33:27 -0500

[+cc Rafael (maybe already cc'd; I didn't recognize rafael at kernel.org, Duc]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:23:21AM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 19.09.2016 20:09, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:24:05PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> >>thunder-pem driver stands for being ACPI based PCI host controller.
> >>However, there is no standard way to describe its PEM-specific register
> >>ranges in ACPI tables. Thus we add thunder_pem_init() ACPI extension
> >>to obtain hardcoded addresses from static resource array.
> >>Although it is not pretty, it prevents from creating standard mechanism to
> >>handle similar cases in future.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <[email-masked]>
> >>---
> >> drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c
> >>index 6abaf80..b048761 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-thunder-pem.c
> >>@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/init.h>
> >> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> >> #include <linux/of_pci.h>
> >>+#include <linux/pci-acpi.h>
> >> #include <linux/pci-ecam.h>
> >> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>
> >>@@ -284,6 +285,40 @@ static int thunder_pem_config_write(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
> >> 	return pci_generic_config_write(bus, devfn, where, size, val);
> >> }
> >>
> >>+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> >>+static struct resource thunder_pem_reg_res[] = {
> >>+	[4] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x87e0c0000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[5] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x87e0c1000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[6] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x87e0c2000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[7] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x87e0c3000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[8] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x87e0c4000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[9] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x87e0c5000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[14] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x97e0c0000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[15] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x97e0c1000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[16] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x97e0c2000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[17] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x97e0c3000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[18] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x97e0c4000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >>+	[19] = DEFINE_RES_MEM(0x97e0c5000000UL, SZ_16M),
> >
> >1) The "correct" way to discover the resources consumed by an ACPI
> >   device is to use the _CRS method.  I know there are some issues
> >   there for bridges (not the fault of ThunderX!) because there's not
> >   a good way to distinguish windows from resources consumed directly
> >   by the bridge.
> >
> >   But we should either do this correctly, or include a comment about
> >   why we're doing it wrong, so we don't give the impression that this
> >   is the right way to do it.
> >
> >   I seem to recall some discussion about why we're doing it this way,
> >   but I don't remember the details.  It'd be nice to include a
> >   summary here.
> 
> OK I will. The reason why we cannot use _CRS for this case is that
> CONSUMER flag was not use consistently for the bridge so far.

Yes, I'm aware of that problem, but hard-coding resources into drivers
is just a disaster.  The PCI and ACPI cores need generic ways to learn
what resources are consumed by devices.  For PCI devices, that's done
with BARs.  For ACPI devices, it's done with _CRS.  Without generic
resource discovery, we can't manage resources reliably at the system
level [1].

You have a PNP0A03/PNP0A08 device for the PCI host bridge.  Because of
the BIOS bugs in CONSUMER flag usage, we assume everything in its _CRS
is a window and not consumed by the bridge itself.  What if you added
a companion ACPI device with a _CRS that contained the bridge
resources?  Then you'd have some driver ugliness to find that device,
but at least the ACPI core could tell what resources were in use.

Maybe Rafael has a better idea?

Bjorn

[1] I know the ACPI core currently doesn't actually *do* anything with
_CRS.  But I think it *should*, and someday it might, so I want to
preserve the principle of using _CRS to document all the resources.