Subject: [PATCH V7 07/11] pci, acpi: Handle ACPI companion assignment.

From: [email-masked] (Tomasz Nowicki)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:50:07 +0200

On 12.05.2016 00:43, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:30:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:37:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Tomasz Nowicki <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>> This patch provides a way to set the ACPI companion in PCI code.
>>>>> We define acpi_pci_set_companion() to set the ACPI companion pointer and
>>>>> call it from PCI core code. The function is stub for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jayachandran C <[email-masked]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <[email-masked]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/pci/probe.c      | 2 ++
>>>>>   include/linux/pci-acpi.h | 4 ++++
>>>>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>>> index 8004f67..fb0b752 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>>>>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/cpumask.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/pci-acpi.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/pci-aspm.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/aer.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>> @@ -2141,6 +2142,7 @@ struct pci_bus *pci_create_root_bus(struct device *parent, int bus,
>>>>>          bridge->dev.parent = parent;
>>>>>          bridge->dev.release = pci_release_host_bridge_dev;
>>>>>          dev_set_name(&bridge->dev, "pci%04x:%02x", pci_domain_nr(b), bus);
>>>>> +       acpi_pci_set_companion(bridge);
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we'll probably add something similar here.
>>>>
>>>> Do I think now is the right time to do that?  No.
>>>>
>>>>>          error = pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(bridge);
>>>>>          if (error) {
>>>>>                  kfree(bridge);
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
>>>>> index 09f9f02..1baa515 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -111,6 +111,10 @@ static inline void acpi_pci_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) { }
>>>>>   static inline void acpi_pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) { }
>>>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline void acpi_pci_set_companion(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>   static inline int acpi_pci_bus_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>          return 0;
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, to me it looks like this series is trying very hard to avoid
>>>> doing any PCI host bridge configuration stuff from arch/arm64/
>>>> although (a) that might be simpler and (b) it would allow us to
>>>> identify the code that's common between *all* architectures using ACPI
>>>> support for host bridge configuration and to move *that* to a common
>>>> place later.  As done here it seems to be following the "ARM64 is
>>>> generic and the rest of the world is special" line which isn't really
>>>> helpful.
>>>
>>> I think patch [1-2] should be merged regardless (they may require minor
>>> tweaks if we decide to move pci_acpi_scan_root() to arch/arm64 though,
>>> for include files location). I guess you are referring to patch 8 in
>>> your comments above, which boils down to deciding whether:
>>>
>>> - pci_acpi_scan_root() (and unfortunately all the MCFG/ECAM handling that
>>>    goes with it) should live in arch/arm64 or drivers/acpi
>>
>> To be precise, everything under #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PCI_HOST_GENERIC or
>> equivalent is de facto ARM64-specific, because (as it stands in the
>> patch series) ARM64 is the only architecture that will select that
>> option.  Unless you are aware of any more architectures planning to
>> use ACPI (and I'm not aware of any), it will stay the only
>> architecture selecting it in the foreseeable future.
>>
>> Therefore you could replace CONFIG_ACPI_PCI_HOST_GENERIC with
>> CONFIG_ARM64 everywhere in that code which is why in my opinion the
>> code should live somewhere under arch/arm64/.
>>
>> Going forward, it should be possible to identify common parts of the
>> PCI host bridge configuration code in arch/ and move it to
>> drivers/acpi/ or drivers/pci/, but I bet that won't be the entire code
>> this series puts under CONFIG_ACPI_PCI_HOST_GENERIC.
>>
>> The above leads to a quite straightforward conclusion about the order
>> in which to do things: I'd add ACPI support for PCI host bridge on
>> ARM64 following what's been done on ia64 (as x86 is more quirky and
>> kludgy overall) as far as reasonably possible first and then think
>> about moving common stuff to a common place.
>
> That does seem like a reasonable approach.  I had hoped to get more of
> this in for v4.7, but we don't have much time left.  Maybe some of
> Rafael's comments can be addressed by moving and slight restructuring
> and we can still squeeze it in.
>
> The first three patches:
>
>    PCI: Provide common functions for ECAM mapping
>    PCI: generic, thunder: Use generic ECAM API
>    PCI, of: Move PCI I/O space management to PCI core code
>
> seem relatively straightforward, and I applied them to pci/arm64 with
> the intent of merging them unless there are objections.  I made the
> following tweaks, mainly to try to improve some error messages:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/ecam.c b/drivers/pci/ecam.c
> index 3d52005..e1add01 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/ecam.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/ecam.c
> @@ -24,9 +24,9 @@
>   #include "ecam.h"
>
>   /*
> - * On 64 bit systems, we do a single ioremap for the whole config space
> - * since we have enough virtual address range available. On 32 bit, do an
> - * ioremap per bus.
> + * On 64-bit systems, we do a single ioremap for the whole config space
> + * since we have enough virtual address range available.  On 32-bit, we
> + * ioremap the config space for each bus individually.
>    */
>   static const bool per_bus_mapping = !config_enabled(CONFIG_64BIT);
>
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ struct pci_config_window *pci_ecam_create(struct device *dev,
>   {
>   	struct pci_config_window *cfg;
>   	unsigned int bus_range, bus_range_max, bsz;
> +	struct resource *conflict;
>   	int i, err;
>
>   	if (busr->start > busr->end)
> @@ -58,10 +59,10 @@ struct pci_config_window *pci_ecam_create(struct device *dev,
>   	bus_range = resource_size(&cfg->busr);
>   	bus_range_max = resource_size(cfgres) >> ops->bus_shift;
>   	if (bus_range > bus_range_max) {
> -		dev_warn(dev, "bus max %#x reduced to %#x",
> -					bus_range, bus_range_max);
>   		bus_range = bus_range_max;
>   		cfg->busr.end = busr->start + bus_range - 1;
> +		dev_warn(dev, "ECAM area %pR can only accommodate %pR (reduced from %pR desired)\n",
> +			 cfgres, &cfg->busr, busr);
>   	}
>   	bsz = 1 << ops->bus_shift;
>
> @@ -70,9 +71,11 @@ struct pci_config_window *pci_ecam_create(struct device *dev,
>   	cfg->res.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_BUSY;
>   	cfg->res.name = "PCI ECAM";
>
> -	err = request_resource(&iomem_resource, &cfg->res);
> -	if (err) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "request ECAM res %pR failed\n", &cfg->res);
> +	conflict = request_resource(&iomem_resource, &cfg->res);

We need request_resource_conflict here then:
-	conflict = request_resource(&iomem_resource, &cfg->res);
+	conflict = request_resource_conflict(&iomem_resource, &cfg->res);

Thanks,
Tomasz