Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: Fix Intel i210 by avoiding overlapping of BARs

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2021-08-20 17:12, schrieb Michael Walle:
> Am 2021-03-15 22:51, schrieb Michael Walle:
>> Am 2021-02-01 23:20, schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
>>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 08:49:16PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> Am 2021-01-17 20:27, schrieb Michael Walle:
>>>> > Am 2021-01-16 00:57, schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
>>>> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:32:32AM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> > > > Am 2021-01-12 23:58, schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
>>>> > > > > On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 07:31:46PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> > > > > > Am 2021-01-08 22:20, schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > 3) If the Intel i210 is defective in how it handles an Expansion ROM
>>>> > > > > > > that overlaps another BAR, a quirk might be the right fix. But my
>>>> > > > > > > guess is the device is working correctly per spec and there's
>>>> > > > > > > something wrong in how firmware/Linux is assigning things.  That would
>>>> > > > > > > mean we need a more generic fix that's not a quirk and not tied to the
>>>> > > > > > > Intel i210.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Agreed, but as you already stated (and I've also found that in
>>>> > > > > > the PCI spec) the Expansion ROM address decoder can be shared by
>>>> > > > > > the other BARs and it shouldn't matter as long as the ExpROM BAR
>>>> > > > > > is disabled, which is the case here.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > My point is just that if this could theoretically affect devices
>>>> > > > > other than the i210, the fix should not be an i210-specific quirk.
>>>> > > > > I'll assume this is a general problem and wait for a generic PCI
>>>> > > > > core solution unless it's i210-specific.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I guess the culprit here is that linux skips the programming of the
>>>> > > > BAR because of some broken Matrox card. That should have been a
>>>> > > > quirk instead, right? But I don't know if we want to change that, do
>>>> > > > we? How many other cards depend on that?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Oh, right.  There's definitely some complicated history there that
>>>> > > makes me a little scared to change things.  But it's also unfortunate
>>>> > > if we have to pile quirks on top of quirks.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > And still, how do we find out that the i210 is behaving correctly?
>>>> > > > In my opinion it is clearly not. You can change the ExpROM BAR value
>>>> > > > during runtime and it will start working (while keeping it
>>>> > > > disabled).  Am I missing something here?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I agree; if the ROM BAR is disabled, I don't think it should matter at
>>>> > > all what it contains, so this does look like an i210 defect.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Would you mind trying the patch below?  It should update the ROM BAR
>>>> > > value even when it is disabled.  With the current pci_enable_rom()
>>>> > > code that doesn't rely on the value read from the BAR, I *think* this
>>>> > > should be safe even on the Matrox and similar devices.
>>>> >
>>>> > Your patch will fix my issue:
>>>> >
>>>> > Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>>>> 
>>>> any news on this?
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the reminder.  I was thinking this morning that I need to
>>> get back to this.  I'm trying to convince myself that doing this
>>> wouldn't break the problem fixed by 755528c860b0 ("Ignore disabled 
>>> ROM
>>> resources at setup").  So far I haven't quite succeeded.
>> 
>> ping #2 ;)
> 
> ping #3, soon we can celebrate our first one year anniversary :p

ping #4

In a few days this is a year old. Please have a look at it and either 
add
my quirk patch or apply your patch. This is still breaking i210 on
my board.

TBH, this is really frustrating.

-michael