From: Jeremy Linton <email@example.com>
To: Will Deacon <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <email@example.com>
Cc: Jon Masters <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: PCI: Enable SMC conduit
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:46:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On 1/22/21 1:48 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 10:32:16AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 04:05:48PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 1/7/21 1:14 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 10:57:35PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>>>> Given that most arm64 platform's PCI implementations needs quirks
>>>>> to deal with problematic config accesses, this is a good place to
>>>>> apply a firmware abstraction. The ARM PCI SMMCCC spec details a
>>>>> standard SMC conduit designed to provide a simple PCI config
>>>>> accessor. This specification enhances the existing ACPI/PCI
>>>>> abstraction and expects power, config, etc functionality is handled
>>>>> by the platform. It also is very explicit that the resulting config
>>>>> space registers must behave as is specified by the pci specification.
>>>>> Lets hook the normal ACPI/PCI config path, and when we detect
>>>>> missing MADT data, attempt to probe the SMC conduit. If the conduit
>>>>> exists and responds for the requested segment number (provided by the
>>>>> ACPI namespace) attach a custom pci_ecam_ops which redirects
>>>>> all config read/write requests to the firmware.
>>>>> This patch is based on the Arm PCI Config space access document @
>>>> Why does firmware need to be involved with this at all? Can't we just
>>>> quirk Linux when these broken designs show up in production? We'll need
>>>> to modify Linux _anyway_ when the firmware interface isn't implemented
>>> I agree with Will on this. I think we want to find a way to address some
>>> of the non-compliance concerns through quirks in Linux. However...
>> I understand the concern and if you are asking me if this can be fixed
>> in Linux it obviously can. The point is, at what cost for SW and
>> maintenance - in Linux and other OSes, I think Jeremy summed it up
>> pretty well:
>> The issue here is that what we are asked to support on ARM64 ACPI is a
>> moving target and the target carries PCI with it.
>> This potentially means that all drivers in:
>> may require an MCFG quirk and to implement it we may have to:
>> - Define new ACPI bindings (that may need AML and that's already a
>> showstopper for some OSes)
>> - Require to manage clocks in the kernel (see link-up checks)
>> - Handle PCI config space faults in the kernel
>> Do we really want to do that ? I don't think so. Therefore we need
>> to have a policy to define what constitutes a "reasonable" quirk and
>> that's not objective I am afraid, however we slice it (there is no
>> such a thing as eg 90% ECAM).
> Without a doubt, I would much prefer to see these quirks and workarounds
> in Linux than hidden behind a firmware interface. Every single time.
> This isn't like the usual fragmentation problems, where firmware swoops in
> to save the day; CPU onlining, spectre mitigations, early entropy etc. All
> of these problems exist because there isn't a standard method to implement
> them outside of firmware, and so adding a layer of abstraction there makes
There are a lot of parallels with PSCI here because there were existing
standards for cpu online.
> But PCIe is already a standard!
And it says that ECAM is optional, particularly if there are
firmware/platform standardized ways of accessing the config space.
> We shouldn't paper over hardware designers' inability to follow a ~20 year
> old standard by hiding it behind another standard that is hot off the press.
No disagreement, but its been more than half a decade and there are some
high (millions!) volume parts, that still don't have kernel support.
> There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest that the firmware
> implementations will be any better, but they will certainly be harder to
> debug and maintain. I have significant reservations about Arm's interest in
> maintaining the spec as both more errata appear and the PCIe spec evolves
> (after all, this is outside of SBSA, no?). The whole thing stinks of "if all
> you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail". But this isn't the
> sort of problem that is solved with yet another spec -- instead, how about
> encouraging vendors to read the specs that already exist?
PSCI, isn't a good example of a firmware interface that works?
>> The SMC is an olive branch and just to make sure it is crystal clear
>> there won't be room for adding quirks if the implementation turns out
>> to be broken, if a line in the sand is what we want here it is.
> I appreciate the sentiment, but you're not solving the problem here. You're
> moving it somewhere else. Somewhere where you don't have to deal with it
> (and I honestly can't blame you for that), but also somewhere where you
> _can't_ necessarily deal with it. The inevitable outcome is an endless
> succession of crappy, non-compliant machines which only appear to operate
> correctly with particularly kernel/firmware combinations. Imagine trying to
> use something like that?
> The approach championed here actively discourages vendors from building
> spec-compliant hardware and reduces our ability to work around problems
> on such hardware at the same time.
> So I won't be applying these patches, sorry.
Does that mean its open season for ECAM quirks, and we can expect them
to start being merged now?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-27 7:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-05 4:57 [PATCH] arm64: PCI: Enable SMC conduit Jeremy Linton
2021-01-07 15:28 ` Rob Herring
2021-01-07 16:23 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-01-07 17:36 ` Rob Herring
2021-01-07 19:45 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-01-07 20:35 ` Rob Herring
2021-01-07 18:14 ` Will Deacon
2021-01-07 19:18 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-01-07 21:05 ` Jon Masters
2021-01-07 21:49 ` Rob Herring
2021-01-08 10:32 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2021-01-22 19:48 ` Will Deacon
2021-01-26 16:46 ` Jeremy Linton [this message]
2021-01-26 22:54 ` Will Deacon
2021-01-28 18:50 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-01-28 23:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
[not found] ` <CACCGGCc3zULqHgUh3Q9wA5WtPBnQ4eq_v2+1qA8bOBCQZJ5YoQ@mail.gmail.com>
2021-02-25 9:30 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2021-02-25 22:31 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-01-26 17:08 ` Vikram Sethi
2021-01-26 22:53 ` Will Deacon
2021-03-25 13:12 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2021-03-25 20:45 ` Marcin Wojtas
2021-03-25 21:12 ` Jon Masters
2021-03-26 9:27 ` Marcin Wojtas
2021-06-16 17:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe
[not found] ` <CA+kK7ZijdNERQSauEvAffR7JLbfZ512na2-9cJrU0vFbNnDGwQ@mail.gmail.com>
2021-06-18 14:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-19 16:34 ` Jon Masters
2021-06-19 16:38 ` Jon Masters
2021-06-20 0:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-18 15:10 ` Jeremy Linton
2021-01-12 16:16 ` Vidya Sagar
2021-01-12 16:57 ` Jeremy Linton
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).