Re: [PATCH v8 00/11] ACPI/IORT: Support for IORT RMR node

From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux IOMMU <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	wanghuiqiang <wanghuiqiang@huawei.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Sami Mujawar <Sami.Mujawar@arm.com>,
	Jon Nettleton <jon@solid-run.com>,
	yangyicong <yangyicong@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/11] ACPI/IORT: Support for IORT RMR node
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 11:30:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yi8nV8H4Jjlpadmk@lpieralisi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEn8RhmHcCxpKeDy_B8-072wvbsZzc-78XNFJdtaKPWBQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:43:51AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 11:37, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Robin
> >
> > On 3/11/22 11:34 AM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 2022-03-11 08:19, Eric Auger wrote:
> > >> Hi guys,
> > >>
> > >> On 2/21/22 4:43 PM, Shameer Kolothum wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Since we now have an updated verion[0] of IORT spec(E.d) which
> > >>> addresses the memory attributes issues discussed here [1],
> > >>> this series now make use of it.
> > >>>
> > >>> The pull request for ACPICA E.d related changes are already
> > >>> raised and can be found here,
> > >>> https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/752
> > >>>
> > >>> v7 --> v8
> > >>>    - Patch #1 has temp definitions for RMR related changes till
> > >>>      the ACPICA header changes are part of kernel.
> > >>>    - No early parsing of RMR node info and is only parsed at the
> > >>>      time of use.
> > >>>    - Changes to the RMR get/put API format compared to the
> > >>>      previous version.
> > >>>    - Support for RMR descriptor shared by multiple stream IDs.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please take a look and let me know your thoughts.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Shameer
> > >>> [0] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0049/ed/
> > >> I still have a question on the IORT E.d spec (unrelated to this series).
> > >>
> > >> The spec mandates that if RMR nodes are presented in the IORT,
> > >> _DSM function #5 for the PCIe host bridge ACPI device object must return
> > >> 0, indicating the OS must honour the PCI config that the FW computed at
> > >> boot time.
> > >>
> > >> However implementing this _DSM #5 as above is known to prevent PCI
> > >> devices with IO ports from working, on aarch64 linux.
> > >>
> > >> "
> > >> The reason is that EFI creates I/O port mappings below
> > >>      0x1000 (in fact, at 0). However Linux, for legacy reasons, does not
> > >>      support I/O ports <= 0x1000 on PCI, so the I/O assignment
> > >> created by EFI
> > >>      is rejected.
> > >>          EFI creates the mappings primarily for itself, and up until
> > >> DSM #5
> > >>      started to be enforced, all PCI resource allocations that
> > >> existed at
> > >>      boot were ignored by Linux and recreated from scratch.
> > >> "
> > >>
> > >> This is an excerpt of a qemu commit message that reverted the _DMS #5
> > >> change (Revert "acpi/gpex: Inform os to keep firmware resource map").
> > >> Has the situation changed since July 2021 (ie. has UEFI been reworked?).
> > >> [+ Ard]
> > >
> > > FWIW I wasn't aware of that, but if it's an issue then it will need to
> > > be fixed in Linux or UEFI's PCI resource code (arguably if UEFI has
> > > already allocated from the bottom of I/O space then Linux should be
> > > safe to assume that there are no legacy PC I/O resources to worry
> > > about). The DSM is required to prevent bus numbers being reassigned,
> > > because if that happens then any PCI StreamIDs referenced in IORT may
> > > suddenly become meaningless and the association of root complex nodes
> > > and RMRs to physical hardware lost.
> >
> > Thank you for confirming and explaining the need for DSM #5. Ard, please
> > could you confirm that the incompatibility with PCI devices with IO
> > ports is still there?
> >
> 
> Yes, and this needs to be fixed in Linux. The firmware complies with
> the pertinent specifications, and it is Linux that deviates from this
> for legacy reasons.
> 
> IIRC, this came up on the mailing list at some point, and one of the
> issues is that I/O port 0x0 is mistaken for 'no resource' or some
> other exceptional case like that, so even if we fix the arbitrary
> limit of 0x1000, we may still run into trouble when devices uses I/O
> port 0x0.

Yes, I need to go back to that thread to sort this out.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel