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

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2021-12-23 17:37, schrieb Bjorn Helgaas:

> I intended to change the quirk from FINAL to EARLY, but obviously
> forgot.  Here's the updated version:
> 
> commit bb5639b73a2d ("PCI: Work around Intel I210 ROM BAR overlap 
> defect")
> Author: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> Date:   Tue Dec 21 10:45:07 2021 -0600
> 
>     PCI: Work around Intel I210 ROM BAR overlap defect
> 
>     Per PCIe r5, sec 7.5.1.2.4, a device must not claim accesses to its
>     Expansion ROM unless both the Memory Space Enable and the Expansion 
> ROM
>     Enable bit are set.  But apparently some Intel I210 NICs don't work
>     correctly if the ROM BAR overlaps another BAR, even if the 
> Expansion ROM is
>     disabled.
> 
>     Michael reported that on a Kontron SMARC-sAL28 ARM64 system with 
> U-Boot
>     v2021.01-rc3, the ROM BAR overlaps BAR 3, and networking doesn't 
> work at
>     all:
> 
>       BAR 0: 0x40000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1M]
>       BAR 3: 0x40200000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
>       ROM:   0x40200000 (disabled) [size=1M]
> 
>       NETDEV WATCHDOG: enP2p1s0 (igb): transmit queue 0 timed out
>       Hardware name: Kontron SMARC-sAL28 (Single PHY) on SMARC Eval
> 2.0 carrier (DT)
>       igb 0002:01:00.0 enP2p1s0: Reset adapter
> 
>     Previously, pci_std_update_resource() wrote the assigned ROM 
> address to the
>     BAR only when the ROM was enabled.  This meant that the I210 ROM 
> BAR could
>     be left with an address assigned by firmware, which might overlap 
> with
>     other BARs.
> 
>     Quirk these I210 devices so pci_std_update_resource() always writes 
> the
>     assigned address to the ROM BAR, whether or not the ROM is enabled.
> 
>     Link: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201230185317.30915-1-michael@walle.cc
>     Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211105
>     Reported-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>     Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>

Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>

Thanks,
-michael