From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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=-16.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham 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 27836C4361B for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:33:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (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 3DF5622E02 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:33:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3DF5622E02 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:49294 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kptPJ-0003tB-CA for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:33:25 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kptM9-000207-AY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:30:09 -0500 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:2479) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kptM5-0002Ss-Ln for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:30:09 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS411-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4CxXs13v98zM5pB; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 21:29:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.174.184.155) by DGGEMS411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.211) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.498.0; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 21:29:50 +0800 From: Jiahui Cen To: Subject: [PATCH] acpi/gpex: Inform os to keep firmware resource map Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 21:29:26 +0800 Message-ID: <20201217132926.4812-1-cenjiahui@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [10.174.184.155] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Received-SPF: pass client-ip=45.249.212.191; envelope-from=cenjiahui@huawei.com; helo=szxga05-in.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: xieyingtai@huawei.com, Igor Mammedov , Jiahui Cen , Gerd Hoffmann , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" There may be some differences in pci resource assignment between guest os and firmware. Eg. A Bridge with Bus [d2] -+-[0000:d2]---01.0-[d3]----01.0 where [d2:01.00] is a pcie-pci-bridge with BAR0 (mem, 64-bit, non-pref) [size=256] [d3:01.00] is a PCI Device with BAR0 (mem, 64-bit, pref) [size=128K] BAR4 (mem, 64-bit, pref) [size=64M] In EDK2, the Resource Map would be: PciBus: Resource Map for Bridge [D2|01|00] Type = PMem64; Base = 0x8004000000; Length = 0x4100000; Alignment = 0x3FFFFFF Base = 0x8004000000; Length = 0x4000000; Alignment = 0x3FFFFFF; Owner = PCI [D3|01|00:20] Base = 0x8008000000; Length = 0x20000; Alignment = 0x1FFFF; Owner = PCI [D3|01|00:10] Type = Mem64; Base = 0x8008100000; Length = 0x100; Alignment = 0xFFF While in Linux, kernel will use 0x2FFFFFF as the alignment to calculate the PMem64 size, which would be 0x6000000. The diffences could result in resource assignment failure. Using _DSM #5 method to inform guest os not to ignore the PCI configuration that firmware has done at boot time could handle the differences. Signed-off-by: Jiahui Cen --- hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c | 11 ++++++++++- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c b/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c index 071aa11b5c..2b490f3379 100644 --- a/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c +++ b/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c @@ -112,10 +112,19 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_pci_osc(Aml *dev) UUID = aml_touuid("E5C937D0-3553-4D7A-9117-EA4D19C3434D"); ifctx = aml_if(aml_equal(aml_arg(0), UUID)); ifctx1 = aml_if(aml_equal(aml_arg(2), aml_int(0))); - uint8_t byte_list[1] = {1}; + uint8_t byte_list[1] = {0x21}; buf = aml_buffer(1, byte_list); aml_append(ifctx1, aml_return(buf)); aml_append(ifctx, ifctx1); + + /* PCI Firmware Specification 3.2 + * 4.6.5. _DSM for Ignoring PCI Boot Configurations + * The UUID in _DSM in this context is + * {E5C937D0-3553-4D7A-9117-EA4D19C3434D} + */ + ifctx1 = aml_if(aml_equal(aml_arg(2), aml_int(5))); + aml_append(ifctx1, aml_return(aml_int(0))); + aml_append(ifctx, ifctx1); aml_append(method, ifctx); byte_list[0] = 0; -- 2.28.0