From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Liviu.Dudau@arm.com (Liviu Dudau) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:47:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v8 4/9] pci: OF: Fix the conversion of IO ranges into IO resources. In-Reply-To: References: <1404240214-9804-1-git-send-email-Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> <201407072322.00990.arnd@arndb.de> <20140708100332.GW6501@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201407091031.50402.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20140716144736.GW825@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 08 July 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:22:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > > >> > I looked at the other drivers briefly, and I think you indeed fix the Tegra > >> > driver with this but break the integrator driver as mentioned above. > >> > The other callers of of_pci_range_to_resource() are apparently not > >> > impacted as they recalculate the values they get. > >> > >> I would argue that integrator version is having broken assumptions. If it would > >> try to allocate that IO range or request the resource as returned currently by > >> of_pci_range_to_resource (without my patch) it would fail. I know because I did > >> the same thing in my host bridge driver and it failed miserably. That's why I > >> tried to patch it. > > > > The integrator code was just introduced and the reason for how it does things > > is the way that of_pci_range_to_resource() works today. We tried to cope with > > it and not change the existing behavior in order to not break any other drivers. > > > > It's certainly not fair to call the integrator version broken, it just works > > around the common code having a quirky interface. We should probably have > > done of_pci_range_to_resource better than it is today (I would have argued > > for it to return an IORESOURCE_MEM with the CPU address), but it took long > > enough to get that merged and I was sick of arguing about it. > > > >> If the IO space is memory mapped, then we use the port number, the io_offset > >> and the PCI_IOBASE to get to the virtual address that, when accessed, will > >> generate the correct addresses on the bus, based on what the host bridge has > >> been configured. > >> > >> This is the current level of my understanding of PCI IO. > > What is io_offset supposed to be and be based on? io_offset is the offset that gets applied for each host bridge to the port number to get the offset from PCI_IOBASE. Basically, the second host bridge will have port numbers starting from zero like the first one in the system, but the io_offset will be >= largest port number in the first host bridge. > > > Your understanding is absolutely correct, and that's great because very few > > people get that right. What I think we're really arguing about is what the > > of_pci_range_to_resource is supposed to return. As you and Bjorn both pointed > > out earlier, there are in fact two resources associated with the I/O window > > and the flaw in the current implementation is that of_pci_range_to_resource > > returns the numeric values for the IORESOURCE_MEM resource, but sets the > > type to IORESOURCE_IO, which is offset from that by PCI_IOBASE. > > > > You try to fix that by making it return the correct IORESOURCE_IO resource, > > which is a reasonable approach but you must not break drivers that rely > > on the broken resource while doing that. > > > > The approach that I would have picked is to return the IORESOURCE_MEM > > resource associated with the I/O window and pick a (basically random) > > IORESOURCE_IO resource struct based on what hasn't been used and then > > compute the appropriate io_offset from that. This approach of course > > would also have required fixing up all drivers relying on the current > > behavior. > > > > To be clear, I'm fine with you (and Bjorn if he cares) picking the > > approach you like here, either one of these works fine as long as the > > host drivers use the interface in the way it is defined. > > > >> Now, I believe Rob has switched entirely to using my series in some test that > >> he has run and he hasn't encountered any issues, as long as one remembers in > >> the host bridge driver to add the io_base offset to the .start resource. If > >> not then I need to patch pci_v3.c. > > > > The crazy part of all these discussions is that basically nobody ever uses > > I/O port access, so it's very hard to test and we don't even notice when > > we get it wrong, but we end up spending most of the time for PCI host controller > > reviews trying to get these right. > > FWIW, I test i/o accesses with Versatile QEMU. The LSI53xxxx device in > the model has a kconfig option to use i/o accesses. However, I have > seen in the past this is an area where 2 wrongs can make a right. :) Best regards, Liviu > > Rob > -- ==================== | I would like to | | fix the world, | | but they're not | | giving me the | \ source code! / --------------- ?\_(?)_/?