From: Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "liviu.dudau@arm.com" <liviu.dudau@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Yuanzhichang <yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com>,
"mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
"minyard@acm.org" <minyard@acm.org>,
"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
"benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
"zourongrong@gmail.com" <zourongrong@gmail.com>,
"robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
"kantyzc@163.com" <kantyzc@163.com>,
"linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"olof@lixom.net" <olof@lixom.net>,
"bhelgaas@go og le.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com" <zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:53:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <EE11001F9E5DDD47B7634E2F8A612F2E1F921283@lhreml507-mbx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2822893.F0LqNAm9bT@wuerfel>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@arndb.de]
> Sent: 18 November 2016 12:24
> To: Gabriele Paoloni
> Cc: liviu.dudau@arm.com; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> Yuanzhichang; mark.rutland@arm.com; devicetree@vger.kernel.org;
> lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com; minyard@acm.org; linux-pci@vger.kernel.org;
> benh@kernel.crashing.org; John Garry; will.deacon@arm.com; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; xuwei (O); Linuxarm; zourongrong@gmail.com;
> robh+dt@kernel.org; kantyzc@163.com; linux-serial@vger.kernel.org;
> catalin.marinas@arm.com; olof@lixom.net; bhelgaas@go og le.com;
> zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com; Jason Gunthorpe; Thomas Petazzoni
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on
> Hip06
>
> On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:07:28 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@arndb.de]
> > > On Monday, November 14, 2016 11:26:25 AM CET liviu.dudau@arm.com
> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 08:26:42AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > > > > > Nope, that is not what it means. It means that PCI devices
> can
> > > see I/O
> > > > > > addresses
> > > > > > on the bus that start from 0. There never was any usage for
> non-
> > > PCI
> > > > > > controllers
> > > > >
> > > > > So I am a bit confused...
> > > > > From http://www.firmware.org/1275/bindings/isa/isa0_4d.ps
> > > > > It seems that ISA buses operate on cpu I/O address range [0,
> > > 0xFFF].
> > > > > I thought that was the reason why for most architectures we
> have
> > > > > PCIBIOS_MIN_IO equal to 0x1000 (so I thought that ISA
> controllers
> > > > > usually use [0, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO - 1] )
> > > >
> > > > First of all, cpu I/O addresses is an x86-ism. ARM architectures
> and
> > > others
> > > > have no separate address space for I/O, it is all merged into
> one
> > > unified
> > > > address space. So, on arm/arm64 for example, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO = 0
> could
> > > mean
> > > > that we don't care about ISA I/O because the platform does not
> > > support having
> > > > an ISA bus (e.g.).
> > >
> > > I think to be more specific, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO=0 would indicate that
> you
> > > cannot
> > > have a PCI-to-ISA or PCI-to-LPC bridge in any PCI domain. This is
> > > different
> > > from having an LPC master outside of PCI, as that lives in its own
> > > domain
> > > and has a separately addressable I/O space.
> >
> > Yes correct so if we go for the single domain solution arch that
> > have PCIBIOS_MIN_IO=0 cannot support special devices such as LPC
> > unless we also redefine PCIBIOS_MIN_IO, right?
>
> This is what I was referring to below as the difference between
> a) and b): Setting PCIBIOS_MIN_IO=0 means you cannot have LPC
> behind PCI, but it shouldn't stop you from having a separate
> LPC bridge.
>
> > > The PCIBIOS_MIN_DIRECT_IO name still suggests having something
> related
> > > to
> > > PCIBIOS_MIN_IO, but it really isn't. We are talking about multiple
> > > concepts here that are not the same but that are somewhat related:
> > >
> > > a) keeping PCI devices from allocating low I/O ports on the PCI bus
> > > that would conflict with ISA devices behind a bridge of the
> > > same bus.
> > >
> > > b) reserving the low 0x0-0xfff range of the Linux-internal I/O
> > > space abstraction to a particular LPC or PCI domain to make
> > > legacy device drivers work that hardcode a particular port
> > > number.
> > >
> > > c) Redirecting inb/outb to call a domain-specific accessor function
> > > rather than doing the normal MMIO window for an LPC master or
> > > more generally any arbitrary LPC or PCI domain that has a
> > > nonstandard I/O space.
> > > [side note: actually if we generalized this, we could avoid
> > > assigning an MMIO range for the I/O space on the pci-mvebu
> > > driver, and that would help free up some other remapping
> > > windows]
> > >
> > > I think there is no need to change a) here, we have PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
> > > today and even if we don't need it, there is no obvious downside.
> > > I would also argue that we can ignore b) for the discussion of
> > > the HiSilicon LPC driver, we just need to assign some range
> > > of logical addresses to each domain.
> > >
> > > That means solving c) is the important problem here, and it
> > > shouldn't be so hard. We can do this either with a single
> > > special domain as in the v5 patch series, or by generalizing it
> > > so that any I/O space mapping gets looked up through the device
> > > pointer of the bus master.
> >
> > I am not very on the "generalized" multi-domain solution...
> > Currently the IO accessors prototypes have an unsigned long addr
> > as input parameter. If we live in a multi-domain IO system
> > how can we distinguish inside the accessor which domain addr
> > belongs to?
>
> The easiest change compared to the v5 code would be to walk
> a linked list of 'struct extio_ops' structures rather than
> assuming there is only ever one of them. I think one of the
> earlier versions actually did this.
Right but if my understanding is correct if we live in a multi-
domain I/O space world when you have an input addr in the I/O
accessors this addr can be duplicated (for example for the standard
PCI IO domain and for our special LPC domain).
So effectively even if you walk a linked list there is a problem
of disambiguation...am I right?
>
> Another option the IA64 approach mentioned in another subthread
> today, looking up the operations based on an index from the
> upper bits of the port number. If we do this, we probably
> want to do that for all PIO access and replace the entire
> virtual address remapping logic with that. I think Bjorn
> in the past argued in favor of such an approach, while I
> advocated the current scheme for simplicity based on how
> every I/O space these days is just memory mapped (which now
> turned out to be false, both on powerpc and arm64).
This seems really complex...I am a bit worried that possibly
we end up in having the maintainers saying that it is not worth
to re-invent the world just for this special LPC device...
To be honest with you I would keep things simple for this
LPC and introduce more complex reworks later if more devices
need to be introduced.
What if we stick on a single domain now where we introduce a
reserved threshold for the IO space (say INDIRECT_MAX_IO).
We define INDIRECT_MAX_IO as 0 in "include/linux/extio.h" and
we define INDIRECT_MAX_IO as 0x1000 in "arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h"
So effectively this threshold can change according to the
architecture and so far we only define it for ARM64 as we need
it for ARM64...
Thoughts?
Thanks again
Gab
>
> Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-18 12:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-08 3:47 [PATCH V5 0/3] ARM64 LPC: legacy ISA I/O support zhichang.yuan
2016-11-08 3:47 ` [PATCH V5 1/3] ARM64 LPC: Indirect ISA port IO introduced zhichang.yuan
2016-11-08 12:03 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-08 16:09 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-08 16:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-08 23:16 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-11-10 8:33 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-10 11:22 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-10 19:32 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-11-11 10:07 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-18 9:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-18 11:12 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-18 11:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-21 12:58 ` John Garry
2016-11-08 16:12 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-08 16:33 ` John Garry
2016-11-08 16:49 ` Will Deacon
2016-11-08 17:05 ` John Garry
2016-11-08 22:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-09 11:29 ` John Garry
2016-11-09 21:33 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-12-22 8:15 ` Ming Lei
2016-12-23 1:43 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-12-23 7:24 ` Ming Lei
2017-01-06 11:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-08 3:47 ` [PATCH V5 2/3] ARM64 LPC: Add missing range exception for special ISA zhichang.yuan
2016-11-08 5:17 ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-08 5:27 ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-08 11:49 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-08 16:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-08 17:10 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-09 13:54 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2016-11-09 14:51 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-09 21:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-14 11:11 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2016-11-18 9:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-08 23:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-11-09 11:20 ` Mark Rutland
2016-11-10 7:08 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-11-09 11:39 ` liviu.dudau
2016-11-09 16:16 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-09 16:50 ` liviu.dudau
2016-11-10 6:24 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-10 16:06 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-11 10:37 ` liviu.dudau
2016-11-08 3:47 ` [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06 zhichang.yuan
2016-11-08 6:11 ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-08 16:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-09 12:10 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-09 21:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-10 6:40 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-10 9:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-10 12:36 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-18 11:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-10 15:36 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-10 16:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-11 10:09 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-11 10:48 ` liviu.dudau
2016-11-11 13:39 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-11 14:45 ` liviu.dudau
2016-11-11 15:53 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-11 18:16 ` liviu.dudau
2016-11-14 8:26 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-14 11:26 ` liviu.dudau
2016-11-18 10:17 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-18 12:07 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-18 12:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-18 12:53 ` Gabriele Paoloni [this message]
2016-11-18 13:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-18 16:18 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-18 16:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-18 17:03 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-23 14:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-23 15:22 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-23 17:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-23 23:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-24 9:12 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-24 10:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-25 8:46 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-25 12:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-25 16:27 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-11-11 16:54 ` zhichang.yuan
2016-11-14 11:06 ` One Thousand Gnomes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=EE11001F9E5DDD47B7634E2F8A612F2E1F921283@lhreml507-mbx \
--to=gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=kantyzc@163.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=liviu.dudau@arm.com \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=minyard@acm.org \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=xuwei5@hisilicon.com \
--cc=yuanzhichang@hisilicon.com \
--cc=zhichang.yuan02@gmail.com \
--cc=zourongrong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).