[PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.

Some devices (like virtio-net) have more than one memory resource
(like MMIO32 and MMIO64) and without this flag it would be needed to
verify the address range to know which one is which.

Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/of/address.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
index 73ddf2540f3f..dc7147843783 100644
--- a/drivers/of/address.c
+++ b/drivers/of/address.c
@@ -116,9 +116,12 @@ static unsigned int of_bus_pci_get_flags(const __be32 *addr)
 		flags |= IORESOURCE_IO;
 		break;
 	case 0x02: /* 32 bits */
-	case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
 		flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
 		break;
+
+	case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
+		flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
+		break;
 	}
 	if (w & 0x40000000)
 		flags |= IORESOURCE_PREFETCH;
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

+PPC and PCI lists

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.

Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. Those would be the
ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
don't think powerpc will care either.

I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
neither is prefetch.

> Some devices (like virtio-net) have more than one memory resource
> (like MMIO32 and MMIO64) and without this flag it would be needed to
> verify the address range to know which one is which.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/address.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
> index 73ddf2540f3f..dc7147843783 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/address.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/address.c
> @@ -116,9 +116,12 @@ static unsigned int of_bus_pci_get_flags(const __be32 *addr)
>                 flags |= IORESOURCE_IO;
>                 break;
>         case 0x02: /* 32 bits */
> -       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
>                 flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
>                 break;
> +
> +       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
> +               flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
> +               break;
>         }
>         if (w & 0x40000000)
>                 flags |= IORESOURCE_PREFETCH;
> --
> 2.30.2
>

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

+PPC and PCI lists

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.

Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. Those would be the
ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
don't think powerpc will care either.

I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
neither is prefetch.

> Some devices (like virtio-net) have more than one memory resource
> (like MMIO32 and MMIO64) and without this flag it would be needed to
> verify the address range to know which one is which.
>
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/address.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
> index 73ddf2540f3f..dc7147843783 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/address.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/address.c
> @@ -116,9 +116,12 @@ static unsigned int of_bus_pci_get_flags(const __be32 *addr)
>                 flags |= IORESOURCE_IO;
>                 break;
>         case 0x02: /* 32 bits */
> -       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
>                 flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
>                 break;
> +
> +       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
> +               flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
> +               break;
>         }
>         if (w & 0x40000000)
>                 flags |= IORESOURCE_PREFETCH;
> --
> 2.30.2
>

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!

On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> +PPC and PCI lists
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> 
> Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. 
> 

s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.

> Those would be the
> ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> don't think powerpc will care either.

In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:

pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.

> 
> I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> neither is prefetch.
> 

I am not sure if you mean here:
a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
anything else, or
b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 
(or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.

Again, thanks for helping!

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!

On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> +PPC and PCI lists
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> 
> Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. 
> 

s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.

> Those would be the
> ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> don't think powerpc will care either.

In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:

pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.

> 
> I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> neither is prefetch.
> 

I am not sure if you mean here:
a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
anything else, or
b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 
(or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.

Again, thanks for helping!

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
>
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > +PPC and PCI lists
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> >
> > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> >
>
> s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.

I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.

> > Those would be the
> > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > don't think powerpc will care either.
>
> In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
>
> pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>
> For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.

Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?

Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?

> > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > neither is prefetch.
> >
>
> I am not sure if you mean here:
> a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> anything else, or
> b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.

I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
>
> On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > +PPC and PCI lists
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> >
> > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> >
>
> s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.

I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.

> > Those would be the
> > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > don't think powerpc will care either.
>
> In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
>
> pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>
> For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.

Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?

Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?

> > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > neither is prefetch.
> >
>
> I am not sure if you mean here:
> a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> anything else, or
> b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.

I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > 
> > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > 
> > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > 
> > 
> > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> 
> I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.

Correct. 
Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.

> 
> > > Those would be the
> > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > 
> > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > 
> > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > 
> > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> 
> Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> 
> Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> 

It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
(virtio-net pci@800000020000000). 

For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:

of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags()) 
of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
## device ethernet@8

pci_parse_of_flags()
of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
__of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).

I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.

> > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > neither is prefetch.
> > > 
> > 
> > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > anything else, or
> > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> 
> I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.

I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?

If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).

resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0

The message above was printed without this patch.
With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with 
0x00100000.

Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?
If it's not, how can I check?

> 
> Rob

Thanks Rob!

Leonardo Brás

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > 
> > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > 
> > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > 
> > 
> > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> 
> I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.

Correct. 
Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.

> 
> > > Those would be the
> > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > 
> > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > 
> > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > 
> > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> 
> Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> 
> Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> 

It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
(virtio-net pci@800000020000000). 

For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:

of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags()) 
of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
## device ethernet@8

pci_parse_of_flags()
of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
__of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).

I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.

> > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > neither is prefetch.
> > > 
> > 
> > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > anything else, or
> > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> 
> I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.

I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?

If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).

resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0

The message above was printed without this patch.
With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with 
0x00100000.

Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?
If it's not, how can I check?

> 
> Rob

Thanks Rob!

Leonardo Brás

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > >
> > > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> >
> > I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.
>
> Correct.
> Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.
>
> >
> > > > Those would be the
> > > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > >
> > > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > >
> > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > >
> > > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> >
> > Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> > above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> >
> > Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> >
>
> It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
> (virtio-net pci@800000020000000).
>
> For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:
>
> of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags())
> of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
> pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>
> For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
> ## device ethernet@8
>
> pci_parse_of_flags()
> of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
> __of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
> pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
> pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>
> Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
> dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
> pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).
>
> I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
> in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
> wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
> the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
> the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.

That was my guess as well. I think on pSeries that most PCI devices
are in the DT whereas on Arm and other flattened DT (non OpenFirmware)
platforms PCI devices are not in DT. Of course, for virtio devices,
they would not be in DT in either case.

> > > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > > neither is prefetch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > > anything else, or
> > > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> >
> > I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> > correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.
>
> I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?

Yes. Standard PCI thing.

> If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
> pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
> lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).
>
> resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
> end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
> resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
> end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0
>
> The message above was printed without this patch.
> With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with
> 0x00100000.

Right, as expected.

> Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?

No, because AFAICT, bit 2 in the BAR would not be set.

> If it's not, how can I check?

Can you try 'lspci -vv' and look at the 'Region X:' lines which will
say 32 or 64-bit. I *think* that should reflect what actually got
written into the BARs.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > >
> > > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> >
> > I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.
>
> Correct.
> Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.
>
> >
> > > > Those would be the
> > > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > >
> > > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > >
> > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > >
> > > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> >
> > Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> > above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> >
> > Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> >
>
> It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
> (virtio-net pci@800000020000000).
>
> For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:
>
> of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags())
> of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
> pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>
> For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
> ## device ethernet@8
>
> pci_parse_of_flags()
> of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
> __of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
> pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
> pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
> do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
>
> Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
> dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
> pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).
>
> I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
> in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
> wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
> the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
> the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.

That was my guess as well. I think on pSeries that most PCI devices
are in the DT whereas on Arm and other flattened DT (non OpenFirmware)
platforms PCI devices are not in DT. Of course, for virtio devices,
they would not be in DT in either case.

> > > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > > neither is prefetch.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > > anything else, or
> > > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> >
> > I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> > correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.
>
> I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?

Yes. Standard PCI thing.

> If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
> pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
> lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).
>
> resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
> end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
> resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
> end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0
>
> The message above was printed without this patch.
> With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with
> 0x00100000.

Right, as expected.

> Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?

No, because AFAICT, bit 2 in the BAR would not be set.

> If it's not, how can I check?

Can you try 'lspci -vv' and look at the 'Region X:' lines which will
say 32 or 64-bit. I *think* that should reflect what actually got
written into the BARs.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 20:39 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> > > 
> > > I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.
> > 
> > Correct.
> > Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > Those would be the
> > > > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > > > 
> > > > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > > > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > > > 
> > > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > > > 
> > > > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> > > 
> > > Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> > > above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> > > 
> > > Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> > > 
> > 
> > It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
> > (virtio-net pci@800000020000000).
> > 
> > For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:
> > 
> > of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags())
> > of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
> > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > 
> > For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
> > ## device ethernet@8
> > 
> > pci_parse_of_flags()
> > of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
> > __of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
> > pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
> > pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
> > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > 
> > Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
> > dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
> > pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).
> > 
> > I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
> > in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
> > wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
> > the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
> > the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.
> 
> That was my guess as well. I think on pSeries that most PCI devices
> are in the DT whereas on Arm and other flattened DT (non OpenFirmware)
> platforms PCI devices are not in DT.
> 

It makes sense to me. 

>  Of course, for virtio devices,
> they would not be in DT in either case.

I don't get this part... in pseries it looks like virtio devices can be
in device-tree.

Oh, I think I get it... this pci@800000020000000 looks like a bus
(described in device-tree, so discovered), and then the devices are
inside it, getting scanned.

The virtio device gets the correct flags (from pci_parse_of_flags), but
the bus (pci@800000020000000) does not seem to get it correctly,
because it comes from of_bus_pci_get_flags() which makes sense
according to the name of the function.

(see lspci bellow, output without patch)


00:08.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device (rev
01)
        Subsystem: Red Hat, Inc. Device 1100
        Device tree node:
/sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@800000020000000/ethernet@8
        Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop-
ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- DisINTx+
        Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort-
<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
        Latency: 0
        Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 19
        IOMMU group: 0
        Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
[size=4K]
        Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable)
[size=16K]
        Expansion ROM at 200080040000 [disabled] [size=256K]
        Capabilities: [98] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=3 Masked-
                Vector table: BAR=1 offset=00000000
                PBA: BAR=1 offset=00000800
        Capabilities: [84] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
<unknown>
                BAR=0 offset=00000000 size=00000000
        Capabilities: [70] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: Notify
                BAR=4 offset=00003000 size=00001000 multiplier=00000004
        Capabilities: [60] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
DeviceCfg
                BAR=4 offset=00002000 size=00001000
        Capabilities: [50] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: ISR
                BAR=4 offset=00001000 size=00001000
        Capabilities: [40] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
CommonCfg
                BAR=4 offset=00000000 size=00001000
        Kernel driver in use: virtio-pci


> 
> > > > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > > > neither is prefetch.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > > > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > > > anything else, or
> > > > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > > > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> > > 
> > > I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> > > correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.
> > 
> > I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?
> 
> Yes. Standard PCI thing.

Nice :)

> 
> > If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
> > pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
> > lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).
> > 
> > resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
> > end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
> > resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
> > end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0
> > 
> > The message above was printed without this patch.
> > With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with
> > 0x00100000.
> 
> Right, as expected.
> 
> > Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?
> 
> No, because AFAICT, bit 2 in the BAR would not be set.
> 
> > If it's not, how can I check?
> 
> Can you try 'lspci -vv' and look at the 'Region X:' lines which will
> say 32 or 64-bit. I *think* that should reflect what actually got
> written into the BARs.

As seen in the lspci from above comment:
Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=16K]

So it seems to be getting configured properly.

I think the point here is bus resources not getting the MEM_64 flag,
but device resources getting it correctly. Is that supposed to happen?

> 
> Rob

Thanks Rob!

Leonardo Bras

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 20:39 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> > > 
> > > I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.
> > 
> > Correct.
> > Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > Those would be the
> > > > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > > > 
> > > > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > > > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > > > 
> > > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > > > 
> > > > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> > > 
> > > Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> > > above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> > > 
> > > Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> > > 
> > 
> > It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
> > (virtio-net pci@800000020000000).
> > 
> > For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:
> > 
> > of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags())
> > of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
> > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > 
> > For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
> > ## device ethernet@8
> > 
> > pci_parse_of_flags()
> > of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
> > __of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
> > pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
> > pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
> > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > 
> > Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
> > dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
> > pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).
> > 
> > I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
> > in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
> > wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
> > the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
> > the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.
> 
> That was my guess as well. I think on pSeries that most PCI devices
> are in the DT whereas on Arm and other flattened DT (non OpenFirmware)
> platforms PCI devices are not in DT.
> 

It makes sense to me. 

>  Of course, for virtio devices,
> they would not be in DT in either case.

I don't get this part... in pseries it looks like virtio devices can be
in device-tree.

Oh, I think I get it... this pci@800000020000000 looks like a bus
(described in device-tree, so discovered), and then the devices are
inside it, getting scanned.

The virtio device gets the correct flags (from pci_parse_of_flags), but
the bus (pci@800000020000000) does not seem to get it correctly,
because it comes from of_bus_pci_get_flags() which makes sense
according to the name of the function.

(see lspci bellow, output without patch)


00:08.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device (rev
01)
        Subsystem: Red Hat, Inc. Device 1100
        Device tree node:
/sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@800000020000000/ethernet@8
        Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop-
ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- DisINTx+
        Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort-
<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
        Latency: 0
        Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 19
        IOMMU group: 0
        Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
[size=4K]
        Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable)
[size=16K]
        Expansion ROM at 200080040000 [disabled] [size=256K]
        Capabilities: [98] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=3 Masked-
                Vector table: BAR=1 offset=00000000
                PBA: BAR=1 offset=00000800
        Capabilities: [84] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
<unknown>
                BAR=0 offset=00000000 size=00000000
        Capabilities: [70] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: Notify
                BAR=4 offset=00003000 size=00001000 multiplier=00000004
        Capabilities: [60] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
DeviceCfg
                BAR=4 offset=00002000 size=00001000
        Capabilities: [50] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: ISR
                BAR=4 offset=00001000 size=00001000
        Capabilities: [40] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
CommonCfg
                BAR=4 offset=00000000 size=00001000
        Kernel driver in use: virtio-pci


> 
> > > > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > > > neither is prefetch.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > > > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > > > anything else, or
> > > > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > > > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> > > 
> > > I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> > > correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.
> > 
> > I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?
> 
> Yes. Standard PCI thing.

Nice :)

> 
> > If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
> > pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
> > lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).
> > 
> > resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
> > end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
> > resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
> > end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0
> > 
> > The message above was printed without this patch.
> > With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with
> > 0x00100000.
> 
> Right, as expected.
> 
> > Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?
> 
> No, because AFAICT, bit 2 in the BAR would not be set.
> 
> > If it's not, how can I check?
> 
> Can you try 'lspci -vv' and look at the 'Region X:' lines which will
> say 32 or 64-bit. I *think* that should reflect what actually got
> written into the BARs.

As seen in the lspci from above comment:
Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=16K]

So it seems to be getting configured properly.

I think the point here is bus resources not getting the MEM_64 flag,
but device resources getting it correctly. Is that supposed to happen?

> 
> Rob

Thanks Rob!

Leonardo Bras

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:03 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 20:39 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> > > >
> > > > I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > > Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Those would be the
> > > > > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > > > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > > > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > > > >
> > > > > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > > > > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > > > >
> > > > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > > > >
> > > > > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> > > >
> > > > Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> > > > above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> > > >
> > > > Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
> > > (virtio-net pci@800000020000000).
> > >
> > > For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:
> > >
> > > of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags())
> > > of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
> > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > >
> > > For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
> > > ## device ethernet@8
> > >
> > > pci_parse_of_flags()
> > > of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
> > > __of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
> > > pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
> > > pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
> > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > >
> > > Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
> > > dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
> > > pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).
> > >
> > > I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
> > > in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
> > > wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
> > > the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
> > > the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.
> >
> > That was my guess as well. I think on pSeries that most PCI devices
> > are in the DT whereas on Arm and other flattened DT (non OpenFirmware)
> > platforms PCI devices are not in DT.
> >
>
> It makes sense to me.
>
> >  Of course, for virtio devices,
> > they would not be in DT in either case.
>
> I don't get this part... in pseries it looks like virtio devices can be
> in device-tree.
>
> Oh, I think I get it... this pci@800000020000000 looks like a bus
> (described in device-tree, so discovered), and then the devices are
> inside it, getting scanned.
>
> The virtio device gets the correct flags (from pci_parse_of_flags), but
> the bus (pci@800000020000000) does not seem to get it correctly,
> because it comes from of_bus_pci_get_flags() which makes sense
> according to the name of the function.
>
> (see lspci bellow, output without patch)
>
>
> 00:08.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device (rev
> 01)
>         Subsystem: Red Hat, Inc. Device 1100
>         Device tree node:
> /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@800000020000000/ethernet@8
>         Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop-
> ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- DisINTx+
>         Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort-
> <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
>         Latency: 0
>         Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 19
>         IOMMU group: 0
>         Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
> [size=4K]
>         Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable)
> [size=16K]
>         Expansion ROM at 200080040000 [disabled] [size=256K]
>         Capabilities: [98] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=3 Masked-
>                 Vector table: BAR=1 offset=00000000
>                 PBA: BAR=1 offset=00000800
>         Capabilities: [84] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
> <unknown>
>                 BAR=0 offset=00000000 size=00000000
>         Capabilities: [70] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: Notify
>                 BAR=4 offset=00003000 size=00001000 multiplier=00000004
>         Capabilities: [60] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
> DeviceCfg
>                 BAR=4 offset=00002000 size=00001000
>         Capabilities: [50] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: ISR
>                 BAR=4 offset=00001000 size=00001000
>         Capabilities: [40] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
> CommonCfg
>                 BAR=4 offset=00000000 size=00001000
>         Kernel driver in use: virtio-pci
>
>
> >
> > > > > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > > > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > > > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > > > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > > > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > > > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > > > > neither is prefetch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > > > > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > > > > anything else, or
> > > > > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > > > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > > > > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > > also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> > > > correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.
> > >
> > > I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?
> >
> > Yes. Standard PCI thing.
>
> Nice :)
>
> >
> > > If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
> > > pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
> > > lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).
> > >
> > > resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
> > > end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
> > > resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
> > > end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0
> > >
> > > The message above was printed without this patch.
> > > With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with
> > > 0x00100000.
> >
> > Right, as expected.
> >
> > > Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?
> >
> > No, because AFAICT, bit 2 in the BAR would not be set.
> >
> > > If it's not, how can I check?
> >
> > Can you try 'lspci -vv' and look at the 'Region X:' lines which will
> > say 32 or 64-bit. I *think* that should reflect what actually got
> > written into the BARs.
>
> As seen in the lspci from above comment:
> Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
> Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=16K]
>
> So it seems to be getting configured properly.
>
> I think the point here is bus resources not getting the MEM_64 flag,
> but device resources getting it correctly. Is that supposed to happen?

I experimented with this on Arm with qemu and it seems fine there too.
Looks like the BARs are first read and will have bit 2 set by default
(or hardwired?). Now I'm just wondering why powerpc needs the code it
has...

Anyways, I'll apply the patch.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:03 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 20:39 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 10:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:58 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > > +PPC and PCI lists
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > > > > > > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.
> > > >
> > > > I'm only looking at DT based platforms, and s390 doesn't use DT.
> > >
> > > Correct.
> > > Sorry, I somehow write above the opposite of what I was thinking.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Those would be the
> > > > > > ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> > > > > > fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> > > > > > don't think powerpc will care either.
> > > > >
> > > > > In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
> > > > > virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:
> > > > >
> > > > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > > > >
> > > > > For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.
> > > >
> > > > Oh good, powerpc has 2 possible flags parsing functions. So in the
> > > > above path, do we need to set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64?
> > > >
> > > > Does pci_parse_of_flags() get called in your case?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's called in some cases, but not for the device I am debugging
> > > (virtio-net pci@800000020000000).
> > >
> > > For the above device, here is an expanded stack trace:
> > >
> > > of_bus_pci_get_flags() (from parser->bus->get_flags())
> > > of_pci_range_parser_one() (from macro for_each_of_pci_range)
> > > pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
> > > pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
> > > discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
> > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > >
> > > For other devices, I could also see the following stack trace:
> > > ## device ethernet@8
> > >
> > > pci_parse_of_flags()
> > > of_create_pci_dev+0x7f0/0xa40
> > > __of_scan_bus+0x248/0x320
> > > pcibios_scan_phb+0x370/0x3b0
> > > pcibios_init+0x8c/0x12c
> > > do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
> > > kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
> > > kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
> > > ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70
> > >
> > > Devices that get parsed with of_bus_pci_get_flags() appears first at
> > > dmesg (around 0.015s in my test), while devices that get parsed by
> > > pci_parse_of_flags() appears later (0.025s in my test).
> > >
> > > I am not really used to this code, but having the term "discover phbs"
> > > in the first trace and the term "scan phb" in the second, makes me
> > > wonder if the first trace is seen on devices that are seen/described in
> > > the device-tree and the second trace is seen in devices not present in
> > > the device-tree and found scanning pci bus.
> >
> > That was my guess as well. I think on pSeries that most PCI devices
> > are in the DT whereas on Arm and other flattened DT (non OpenFirmware)
> > platforms PCI devices are not in DT.
> >
>
> It makes sense to me.
>
> >  Of course, for virtio devices,
> > they would not be in DT in either case.
>
> I don't get this part... in pseries it looks like virtio devices can be
> in device-tree.
>
> Oh, I think I get it... this pci@800000020000000 looks like a bus
> (described in device-tree, so discovered), and then the devices are
> inside it, getting scanned.
>
> The virtio device gets the correct flags (from pci_parse_of_flags), but
> the bus (pci@800000020000000) does not seem to get it correctly,
> because it comes from of_bus_pci_get_flags() which makes sense
> according to the name of the function.
>
> (see lspci bellow, output without patch)
>
>
> 00:08.0 Ethernet controller: Red Hat, Inc. Virtio network device (rev
> 01)
>         Subsystem: Red Hat, Inc. Device 1100
>         Device tree node:
> /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@800000020000000/ethernet@8
>         Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop-
> ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- DisINTx+
>         Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort-
> <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
>         Latency: 0
>         Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 19
>         IOMMU group: 0
>         Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
> [size=4K]
>         Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable)
> [size=16K]
>         Expansion ROM at 200080040000 [disabled] [size=256K]
>         Capabilities: [98] MSI-X: Enable+ Count=3 Masked-
>                 Vector table: BAR=1 offset=00000000
>                 PBA: BAR=1 offset=00000800
>         Capabilities: [84] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
> <unknown>
>                 BAR=0 offset=00000000 size=00000000
>         Capabilities: [70] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: Notify
>                 BAR=4 offset=00003000 size=00001000 multiplier=00000004
>         Capabilities: [60] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
> DeviceCfg
>                 BAR=4 offset=00002000 size=00001000
>         Capabilities: [50] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO: ISR
>                 BAR=4 offset=00001000 size=00001000
>         Capabilities: [40] Vendor Specific Information: VirtIO:
> CommonCfg
>                 BAR=4 offset=00000000 size=00001000
>         Kernel driver in use: virtio-pci
>
>
> >
> > > > > > I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> > > > > > the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> > > > > > never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> > > > > > pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> > > > > > just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> > > > > > IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> > > > > > neither is prefetch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure if you mean here:
> > > > > a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
> > > > > anything else, or
> > > > > b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > > > (or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
> > > > > it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if a) is incomplete and PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64
> > > > also needs to be set. The question is ultimately are BARs getting set
> > > > correctly for 64-bit? It looks to me like they aren't.
> > >
> > > I am not used to these terms, does BAR means 'Base Address Register'?
> >
> > Yes. Standard PCI thing.
>
> Nice :)
>
> >
> > > If so, those are the addresses stored in pci->phb->mem_resources[i] and
> > > pci->phb->mem_offset[i], printed from enable_ddw() (which takes place a
> > > lot after discovering the device (0.17s in my run)).
> > >
> > > resource #1 pci@800000020000000: start=0x200080000000
> > > end=0x2000ffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x200000000000
> > > resource #2 pci@800000020000000: start=0x210000000000
> > > end=0x21ffffffffff flags=0x200 desc=0x0 offset=0x0
> > >
> > > The message above was printed without this patch.
> > > With the patch, the flags for memory resource #2 gets ORed with
> > > 0x00100000.
> >
> > Right, as expected.
> >
> > > Is it enough to know if BARs are correctly set for 64-bit?
> >
> > No, because AFAICT, bit 2 in the BAR would not be set.
> >
> > > If it's not, how can I check?
> >
> > Can you try 'lspci -vv' and look at the 'Region X:' lines which will
> > say 32 or 64-bit. I *think* that should reflect what actually got
> > written into the BARs.
>
> As seen in the lspci from above comment:
> Region 1: Memory at 200080020000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
> Region 4: Memory at 210000010000 (64-bit, prefetchable) [size=16K]
>
> So it seems to be getting configured properly.
>
> I think the point here is bus resources not getting the MEM_64 flag,
> but device resources getting it correctly. Is that supposed to happen?

I experimented with this on Arm with qemu and it seems fine there too.
Looks like the BARs are first read and will have bit 2 set by default
(or hardwired?). Now I'm just wondering why powerpc needs the code it
has...

Anyways, I'll apply the patch.

Rob

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

On Tue, 2021-04-20 at 17:34 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think the point here is bus resources not getting the MEM_64 flag,
> > but device resources getting it correctly. Is that supposed to happen?
> 
> I experimented with this on Arm with qemu and it seems fine there too.
> Looks like the BARs are first read and will have bit 2 set by default
> (or hardwired?). Now I'm just wondering why powerpc needs the code it
> has...
> 
> Anyways, I'll apply the patch.
> 
> Rob

Thanks Rob!

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

On Tue, 2021-04-20 at 17:34 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > [...]
> > I think the point here is bus resources not getting the MEM_64 flag,
> > but device resources getting it correctly. Is that supposed to happen?
> 
> I experimented with this on Arm with qemu and it seems fine there too.
> Looks like the BARs are first read and will have bit 2 set by default
> (or hardwired?). Now I'm just wondering why powerpc needs the code it
> has...
> 
> Anyways, I'll apply the patch.
> 
> Rob

Thanks Rob!

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!

On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> +PPC and PCI lists
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> 
> Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. 
> 

s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.

> Those would be the
> ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> don't think powerpc will care either.

In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:

pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.

> 
> I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> neither is prefetch.
> 

I am not sure if you mean here:
a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
anything else, or
b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 
(or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.

Again, thanks for helping!

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Leonardo Bras]

Hello Rob, thanks for this feedback!

On Thu, 2021-04-15 at 13:59 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> +PPC and PCI lists
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> 
> Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. 
> 

s390 also does that, but it look like it comes from a device-tree.

> Those would be the
> ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> don't think powerpc will care either.

In powerpc I reach this function with this stack, while configuring a
virtio-net device for a qemu/KVM pseries guest:

pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges+0xac/0x2d4
pSeries_discover_phbs+0xc4/0x158
discover_phbs+0x40/0x60
do_one_initcall+0x60/0x2d0
kernel_init_freeable+0x308/0x3a8
kernel_init+0x2c/0x168
ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x70

For this, both MMIO32 and MMIO64 resources will have flags 0x200.

> 
> I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> neither is prefetch.
> 

I am not sure if you mean here:
a) it's ok to add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 here, because it does not affect
anything else, or
b) it should be using PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 
(or IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64) instead, since
it's how it's added in powerpc/sparc, and else there is no point.

Again, thanks for helping!

Best regards,
Leonardo Bras

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:59:52PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.

[Adding this to the thread for archaeological purposes since it didn't
make it to the commit log]

The other resource flag parsers appear to be:

  pci_parse_of_flags(u32 addr0, ...)    # powerpc/kernel/pci_of_scan.c
    unsigned int as = addr0 & OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MASK;
    if (as == OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MMIO32 || as == OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MMIO64)
      flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY;
      if (as == OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MMIO64)
        flags |= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;

  pci_parse_of_flags(u32 addr0)         # sparc/kernel/pci.c
    if (addr0 & 0x02000000) {
      flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY;
      if (addr0 & 0x01000000)
        flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64;

  of_bus_pci_get_flags(... addr)        # drivers/of/address.c (this one)
    u32 w = be32_to_cpup(addr);
    switch((w >> 24) & 0x03) {
    case 0x02: /* 32 bits */
      flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
      break;
    case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
      flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
      break;

It's super annoying to have three copies of essentially the same
thing.  Even more annoying that they test the same things in three
completely different ways.  But I remember looking at this several
years ago, and it wasn't as simple to unify these as I had hoped.

> Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. Those would be the
> ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> don't think powerpc will care either.

I'm guessing you're referring to df5be5be8735 ("powerpc/pci/of: Fix OF
flags parsing for 64bit BARs").

> I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> neither is prefetch.
> 
> > Some devices (like virtio-net) have more than one memory resource
> > (like MMIO32 and MMIO64) and without this flag it would be needed to
> > verify the address range to know which one is which.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/address.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
> > index 73ddf2540f3f..dc7147843783 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/address.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/address.c
> > @@ -116,9 +116,12 @@ static unsigned int of_bus_pci_get_flags(const __be32 *addr)
> >                 flags |= IORESOURCE_IO;
> >                 break;
> >         case 0x02: /* 32 bits */
> > -       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
> >                 flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
> >                 break;
> > +
> > +       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
> > +               flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
> > +               break;
> >         }
> >         if (w & 0x40000000)
> >                 flags |= IORESOURCE_PREFETCH;
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:59:52PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:01 PM Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> > has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.

[Adding this to the thread for archaeological purposes since it didn't
make it to the commit log]

The other resource flag parsers appear to be:

  pci_parse_of_flags(u32 addr0, ...)    # powerpc/kernel/pci_of_scan.c
    unsigned int as = addr0 & OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MASK;
    if (as == OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MMIO32 || as == OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MMIO64)
      flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY;
      if (as == OF_PCI_ADDR0_SPACE_MMIO64)
        flags |= PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;

  pci_parse_of_flags(u32 addr0)         # sparc/kernel/pci.c
    if (addr0 & 0x02000000) {
      flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY;
      if (addr0 & 0x01000000)
        flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM_64 | PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64;

  of_bus_pci_get_flags(... addr)        # drivers/of/address.c (this one)
    u32 w = be32_to_cpup(addr);
    switch((w >> 24) & 0x03) {
    case 0x02: /* 32 bits */
      flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
      break;
    case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
      flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
      break;

It's super annoying to have three copies of essentially the same
thing.  Even more annoying that they test the same things in three
completely different ways.  But I remember looking at this several
years ago, and it wasn't as simple to unify these as I had hoped.

> Many others? Looks like sparc and powerpc to me. Those would be the
> ones I worry about breaking. Sparc doesn't use of/address.c so it's
> fine. Powerpc version of the flags code was only fixed in 2019, so I
> don't think powerpc will care either.

I'm guessing you're referring to df5be5be8735 ("powerpc/pci/of: Fix OF
flags parsing for 64bit BARs").

> I noticed both sparc and powerpc set PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 in
> the flags. AFAICT, that's not set anywhere outside of arch code. So
> never for riscv, arm and arm64 at least. That leads me to
> pci_std_update_resource() which is where the PCI code sets BARs and
> just copies the flags in PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK ignoring
> IORESOURCE_* flags. So it seems like 64-bit is still not handled and
> neither is prefetch.
> 
> > Some devices (like virtio-net) have more than one memory resource
> > (like MMIO32 and MMIO64) and without this flag it would be needed to
> > verify the address range to know which one is which.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/address.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c
> > index 73ddf2540f3f..dc7147843783 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/address.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/address.c
> > @@ -116,9 +116,12 @@ static unsigned int of_bus_pci_get_flags(const __be32 *addr)
> >                 flags |= IORESOURCE_IO;
> >                 break;
> >         case 0x02: /* 32 bits */
> > -       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
> >                 flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM;
> >                 break;
> > +
> > +       case 0x03: /* 64 bits */
> > +               flags |= IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_64;
> > +               break;
> >         }
> >         if (w & 0x40000000)
> >                 flags |= IORESOURCE_PREFETCH;
> > --
> > 2.30.2
> >

Re: [PATCH 1/1] of/pci: Add IORESOURCE_MEM_64 to resource flags for 64-bit memory addresses

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:00:51 -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> Many other resource flag parsers already add this flag when the input
> has bits 24 & 25 set, so update this one to do the same.
> 
> Some devices (like virtio-net) have more than one memory resource
> (like MMIO32 and MMIO64) and without this flag it would be needed to
> verify the address range to know which one is which.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/address.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

Applied, thanks!