From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [Patch v7 4/7] PCI/ACPI: Add interface acpi_pci_root_create() Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:09:31 +0100 Message-ID: <6488357.xJV65iBRHq@wuerfel> References: <1444804182-6596-1-git-send-email-jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> <5640A8AA.4000806@semihalf.com> <20151109171042.GA11909@red-moon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:53503 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751417AbbKIUJw (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:09:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20151109171042.GA11909@red-moon> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Lorenzo Pieralisi Cc: Tomasz Nowicki , Jiang Liu , Bjorn Helgaas , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Marc Zyngier , Hanjun Guo , Liviu Dudau , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org On Monday 09 November 2015 17:10:43 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:07:38PM +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > > On 06.11.2015 14:22, Jiang Liu wrote: > > >On 2015/11/6 20:40, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > > >>On 06.11.2015 12:46, Jiang Liu wrote: > > >>>On 2015/11/6 18:37, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > > >>>>On 06.11.2015 09:52, Jiang Liu wrote: > > >>>>Sure, ARM64 (0-16M IO space) QEMU example: > > >>>>DWordIO (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode, EntireRange, > > >>>> 0x00000000, // Granularity > > >>>> 0x00000000, // Range Minimum > > >>>> 0x0000FFFF, // Range Maximum > > >>>> 0x3EFF0000, // Translation Offset > > >>>> 0x00010000, // Length > > >>>> ,, , TypeStatic) > > >>>The above DWordIO resource descriptor doesn't confirm to the ACPI spec. > > >>>According to my understanding, ARM/ARM64 has no concept of IO port > > >>>address space, so the PCI host bridge will map IO port on PCI side > > >>>onto MMIO on host side. In other words, PCI host bridge on ARM64 > > >>>implement a IO Port->MMIO translation instead of a IO Port->IO Port > > >>>translation. If that's true, it should use 'TypeTranslation' instead > > >>>of 'TypeStatic'. And kernel ACPI resource parsing interface doesn't > > >>>support 'TypeTranslation' yet, so we need to find a solution for it. > > >> > > >>I think you are right, we need TypeTranslation flag for ARM64 DWordIO > > >>descriptors and an extra kernel patch to support it. > > >How about the attached to patch to support TypeTranslation? > > >It only passes compilation:) > > > > Based on the further discussion, your draft patch looks good to me. > > Lorenzo, do you agree? > > No, because I still do not understand the difference between ia64 and > arm64 (they both drive IO ports cycles through MMIO so the resource > descriptors content must be the same or better they must mean the same > thing). On top of that, this is something that was heavily debated for DT: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg345633.html > > and I would like to get Arnd and Bjorn opinion on this because we > should not "interpret" ACPI specifications, we should understand > what they are supposed to describe and write kernel code accordingly. > > In particular, I would like to understand, for an eg DWordIO descriptor, > what Range Minimum, Range Maximum and Translation Offset represent, > they can't mean different things depending on the SW parsing them, > this totally defeats the purpose. I have no clue about what those mean in ACPI though. Generally speaking, each PCI domain is expected to have a (normally 64KB) range of CPU addresses that gets translated into PCI I/O space the same way that config space and memory space are handled. This is true for almost every architecture except for x86, which uses different CPU instructions for I/O space compared to the other spaces. > By the way, ia64 ioremaps the translation_offset (ie new_space()), so > basically that's the CPU physical address at which the PCI host bridge > map the IO space transactions), I do not think ia64 is any different from > arm64 in this respect, if it is please provide an HW description here from > the PCI bus perspective here (also an example of ia64 ACPI PCI host bridge > tables would help). The main difference between ia64 and a lot of the other architectures (e.g. sparc is different again) is that ia64 defines a logical address range in terms of having a small number for each I/O space followed by the offset within that space as a 'port number' and uses a mapping function that is defined as static inline void *__ia64_mk_io_addr (unsigned long port) { struct io_space *space = &io_space[IO_SPACE_NR(port)]; return (space->mmio_base | IO_SPACE_PORT(port);); } static inline unsigned int inl(unsigned long port) { return *__ia64_mk_io_addr(port); } Most architectures allow only one I/O port range and put it at a fixed virtual address so that inl() simply becomes static inline u32 inl(unsigned long addr) { return readl(PCI_IOBASE + addr); } which noticeably reduces code size. On some architectures (powerpc, arm, arm64), we then get the same simplified definition with a fixed virtual address, and use pci_ioremap_io() or something like that to to map a physical address range into this virtual address window at the correct io_offset; Arnd