From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=ebxO=4H=lists.ozlabs.org=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE373C3404C
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:41:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48571206DB
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:41:14 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 48571206DB
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=au1.ibm.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3])
	by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48Mhmm0LcxzDqgj
	for <linuxppc-dev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:41:12 +1100 (AEDT)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized)
 smtp.mailfrom=au1.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1;
 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=alastair@au1.ibm.com;
 receiver=<UNKNOWN>)
Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=au1.ibm.com
Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com
 [148.163.156.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48MhkV6Vt2zDqdZ
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:39:14 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1])
 by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id
 01J2Xl0T054150
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:39:12 -0500
Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97])
 by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2y8ub99q5a-1
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT)
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:39:12 -0500
Received: from localhost
 by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only!
 Violators will be prosecuted
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> from <alastair@au1.ibm.com>;
 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:39:09 -0000
Received: from b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.194)
 by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway:
 Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; 
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256)
 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:39:03 -0000
Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
 [9.149.105.232])
 by b06avi18878370.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP
 id 01J2d2Gg36503836
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:39:02 GMT
Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116B052050;
 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:39:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (unknown [9.192.253.14])
 by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646D35204E;
 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:39:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from adsilva.ozlabs.ibm.com (haven.au.ibm.com [9.192.254.114])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D431FA00DF;
 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:38:56 +1100 (AEDT)
From: "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@au1.ibm.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:39:00 +1100
In-Reply-To: <20200203124942.00003b68@Huawei.com>
References: <20191203034655.51561-1-alastair@au1.ibm.com>
 <20191203034655.51561-8-alastair@au1.ibm.com>
 <20200203124942.00003b68@Huawei.com>
Organization: IBM Australia
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.3 (3.34.3-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
x-cbid: 20021902-4275-0000-0000-000003A34DCB
X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused
x-cbparentid: 20021902-4276-0000-0000-000038B75661
Message-Id: <d8c4cbeb65ad87d6ca5a3867bbd94852f8a404f1.camel@au1.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 07/27] ocxl: Add functions to map/unmap LPC memory
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572
 definitions=2020-02-18_08:2020-02-18,
 2020-02-18 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0
 suspectscore=0
 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0
 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0
 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002190017
X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
 Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
 linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
 Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
 Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater <clg@kaod.org>,
 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.ibm.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org
Sender: "Linuxppc-dev"
 <linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org>

On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 12:49 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:46:35 +1100
> Alastair D'Silva <alastair@au1.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@d-silva.org>
> > 
> > Add functions to map/unmap LPC memory
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@d-silva.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/misc/ocxl/config.c        |  4 +++
> >  drivers/misc/ocxl/core.c          | 50
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h |  3 ++
> >  include/misc/ocxl.h               | 18 +++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/config.c
> > b/drivers/misc/ocxl/config.c
> > index c8e19bfb5ef9..fb0c3b6f8312 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/config.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/config.c
> > @@ -568,6 +568,10 @@ static int read_afu_lpc_memory_info(struct
> > pci_dev *dev,
> >  		afu->special_purpose_mem_size =
> >  			total_mem_size - lpc_mem_size;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	dev_info(&dev->dev, "Probed LPC memory of %#llx bytes and
> > special purpose memory of %#llx bytes\n",
> > +		afu->lpc_mem_size, afu->special_purpose_mem_size);
> > +
> 
> If we are being fussy, this block has nothing todo with the rest of
> the patch
> so we should be seeing it here.

Agreed

> 
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/core.c b/drivers/misc/ocxl/core.c
> > index 2531c6cf19a0..98611faea219 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/core.c
> > @@ -210,6 +210,55 @@ static void unmap_mmio_areas(struct ocxl_afu
> > *afu)
> >  	release_fn_bar(afu->fn, afu->config.global_mmio_bar);
> >  }
> >  
> > +int ocxl_afu_map_lpc_mem(struct ocxl_afu *afu)
> > +{
> > +	struct pci_dev *dev = to_pci_dev(afu->fn->dev.parent);
> > +
> > +	if ((afu->config.lpc_mem_size + afu-
> > >config.special_purpose_mem_size) == 0)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	afu->lpc_base_addr = ocxl_link_lpc_map(afu->fn->link, dev);
> > +	if (afu->lpc_base_addr == 0)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	if (afu->config.lpc_mem_size) {
> 
> I was happy with the explicit check on 0 above, but we should be
> consistent.  Either
> we make use of 0 == false, or we don't and explicitly check vs 0.
> 
> Hence
> 
> if (afu->config.pc_mem_size != 0) { 
> 
> here or
> 
> if (!(afu->config.pc_mem_size + afu-
> >config.special_purpose_mem_size))
> 	return 0;
> 
> above.

This feels a bit niggly, but sure, changed to a '> 0' check.

> 
> > +		afu->lpc_res.start = afu->lpc_base_addr + afu-
> > >config.lpc_mem_offset;
> > +		afu->lpc_res.end = afu->lpc_res.start + afu-
> > >config.lpc_mem_size - 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (afu->config.special_purpose_mem_size) {
> > +		afu->special_purpose_res.start = afu->lpc_base_addr +
> > +						 afu-
> > >config.special_purpose_mem_offset;
> > +		afu->special_purpose_res.end = afu-
> > >special_purpose_res.start +
> > +					       afu-
> > >config.special_purpose_mem_size - 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ocxl_afu_map_lpc_mem);
> > +
> > +struct resource *ocxl_afu_lpc_mem(struct ocxl_afu *afu)
> > +{
> > +	return &afu->lpc_res;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ocxl_afu_lpc_mem);
> > +
> > +static void unmap_lpc_mem(struct ocxl_afu *afu)
> > +{
> > +	struct pci_dev *dev = to_pci_dev(afu->fn->dev.parent);
> > +
> > +	if (afu->lpc_res.start || afu->special_purpose_res.start) {
> > +		void *link = afu->fn->link;
> > +
> > +		ocxl_link_lpc_release(link, dev);
> > +
> > +		afu->lpc_res.start = 0;
> > +		afu->lpc_res.end = 0;
> > +		afu->special_purpose_res.start = 0;
> > +		afu->special_purpose_res.end = 0;
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int configure_afu(struct ocxl_afu *afu, u8 afu_idx, struct
> > pci_dev *dev)
> >  {
> >  	int rc;
> > @@ -251,6 +300,7 @@ static int configure_afu(struct ocxl_afu *afu,
> > u8 afu_idx, struct pci_dev *dev)
> >  
> >  static void deconfigure_afu(struct ocxl_afu *afu)
> >  {
> > +	unmap_lpc_mem(afu);
> 
> Hmm. This breaks the existing balance between configure_afu and
> deconfigure_afu.
> 
> Given comments below on why we don't do map_lpc_mem in the afu bring
> up
> (as it's a shared operation) it seems to me that we should be doing
> this
> outside of the afu deconfigure.  Perhaps ocxl_function_close is
> appropriate?
> I don't know this infrastructure well enough to be sure.
> 
> If it does need to be here, then a comment to give more info on
> why would be great!
> 

Sure, I've added a comment in unmap_lpc_mem explaining that lpc_release
only releases the memory on the link when the last consumer calls
release.

It's in deconfigure_afu as the LPC memory is registered and reported
per-AFU (even though it has to be allocated all at once across the
link).

> >  	unmap_mmio_areas(afu);
> >  	reclaim_afu_pasid(afu);
> >  	reclaim_afu_actag(afu);
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h
> > b/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h
> > index 20b417e00949..9f4b47900e62 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h
> > @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ struct ocxl_afu {
> >  	void __iomem *global_mmio_ptr;
> >  	u64 pp_mmio_start;
> >  	void *private;
> > +	u64 lpc_base_addr; /* Covers both LPC & special purpose memory
> > */
> > +	struct resource lpc_res;
> > +	struct resource special_purpose_res;
> >  };
> >  
> >  enum ocxl_context_status {
> > diff --git a/include/misc/ocxl.h b/include/misc/ocxl.h
> > index 06dd5839e438..6f7c02f0d5e3 100644
> > --- a/include/misc/ocxl.h
> > +++ b/include/misc/ocxl.h
> > @@ -212,6 +212,24 @@ int ocxl_irq_set_handler(struct ocxl_context
> > *ctx, int irq_id,
> >  
> >  // AFU Metadata
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * Map the LPC system & special purpose memory for an AFU
> > + *
> > + * Do not call this during device discovery, as there may me
> > multiple
> > + * devices on a link, and the memory is mapped for the whole link,
> > not
> > + * just one device. It should only be called after all devices
> > have
> > + * registered their memory on the link.
> > + *
> > + * afu: The AFU that has the LPC memory to map
> Run kernel-doc over these files and fix all the errors + warnings.
> 
Ok.

> @afu: ..
> 
> and missing function name etc.
> 
> 
> > + */
> > +extern int ocxl_afu_map_lpc_mem(struct ocxl_afu *afu);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * Get the physical address range of LPC memory for an AFU
> > + * afu: The AFU associated with the LPC memory
> > + */
> > +extern struct resource *ocxl_afu_lpc_mem(struct ocxl_afu *afu);
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * Get a pointer to the config for an AFU
> >   *
-- 
Alastair D'Silva
Open Source Developer
Linux Technology Centre, IBM Australia
mob: 0423 762 819