Re: [PATCH V13 2/5] PCI: Create device tree node for bridge

[Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com>]

On 9/12/23 03:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:58:04 -0700
> Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/23 07:48, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:19:57 -0700
>>> Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> The PCI endpoint device such as Xilinx Alveo PCI card maps the register
>>>> spaces from multiple hardware peripherals to its PCI BAR. Normally,
>>>> the PCI core discovers devices and BARs using the PCI enumeration process.
>>>> There is no infrastructure to discover the hardware peripherals that are
>>>> present in a PCI device, and which can be accessed through the PCI BARs.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, the device tree framework requires a device tree node for the
>>>> PCI device. Thus, it can generate the device tree nodes for hardware
>>>> peripherals underneath. Because PCI is self discoverable bus, there might
>>>> not be a device tree node created for PCI devices. Furthermore, if the PCI
>>>> device is hot pluggable, when it is plugged in, the device tree nodes for
>>>> its parent bridges are required. Add support to generate device tree node
>>>> for PCI bridges.
>>>>
>>>> Add an of_pci_make_dev_node() interface that can be used to create device
>>>> tree node for PCI devices.
>>>>
>>>> Add a PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES config option. When the option is turned on,
>>>> the kernel will generate device tree nodes for PCI bridges unconditionally.
>>>>
>>>> Initially, add the basic properties for the dynamically generated device
>>>> tree nodes which include #address-cells, #size-cells, device_type,
>>>> compatible, ranges, reg.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com>
>>> I tried to bring this up for a custom PCIe card emulated in QEMU on an ARM ACPI
>>> machine.
>>>
>>> There are some missing parts that were present in Clements series, but not this
>>> one, particularly creation of the root pci object.
>> Thanks for trying this. The entire effort was separated in different
>> phases. That is why this patchset does not include creating of_root.
>>> Anyhow, hit an intermittent crash...
>>>
>>>   
>>>> ---
>>>> +static int of_pci_prop_intr_map(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct of_changeset *ocs,
>>>> +				struct device_node *np)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct of_phandle_args out_irq[OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN];
>>>> +	u32 i, addr_sz[OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN], map_sz = 0;
>>>> +	__be32 laddr[OF_PCI_ADDRESS_CELLS] = { 0 };
>>>> +	u32 int_map_mask[] = { 0xffff00, 0, 0, 7 };
>>>> +	struct device_node *pnode;
>>>> +	struct pci_dev *child;
>>>> +	u32 *int_map, *mapp;
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +	u8 pin;
>>>> +
>>>> +	pnode = pci_device_to_OF_node(pdev->bus->self);
>>>> +	if (!pnode)
>>>> +		pnode = pci_bus_to_OF_node(pdev->bus);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!pnode) {
>>>> +		pci_err(pdev, "failed to get parent device node");
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	laddr[0] = cpu_to_be32((pdev->bus->number << 16) | (pdev->devfn << 8));
>>>> +	for (pin = 1; pin <= OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN;  pin++) {
>>>> +		i = pin - 1;
>>>> +		out_irq[i].np = pnode;
>>>> +		out_irq[i].args_count = 1;
>>>> +		out_irq[i].args[0] = pin;
>>>> +		ret = of_irq_parse_raw(laddr, &out_irq[i]);
>>>> +		if (ret) {
>>>> +			pci_err(pdev, "parse irq %d failed, ret %d", pin, ret);
>>>> +			continue;
>>> If all the interrupt parsing fails we continue ever time...
>> Did you use Clement's patch to create of_root? I am just wondering if
>> parsing irq could fail on a dt-based system.
> For qemu already have of_root as there is still a device tree, it's just
> used to pass some stuff to EDK2 I think. I was carrying the Frank's
> series adding a bare device tree, it's just not doing anything on these
> systems
>
> I used Clements patch to add the pci root (cleaned up a bit to
> match the style of your series more closely).
>
> However, my interest is in ACPI based systems, not DT based ones.

Thanks for your clarification. I am also more interested in ACPI based 
system. After discussing with Rob, creating PCI nodes on DT based system 
is the first step to achieve this.


Lizhi

>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> And yes, the failure case should be handled without crash. I think if
>> irq parsing failed,  the interrupt-map pair generation should be skipped.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lizhi
>>
>>>   
>>>> +		}
>>>> +		ret = of_property_read_u32(out_irq[i].np, "#address-cells",
>>>> +					   &addr_sz[i]);
>>>> +		if (ret)
>>>> +			addr_sz[i] = 0;
>>> This never happens.
>>>   
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(child, &pdev->subordinate->devices, bus_list) {
>>>> +		for (pin = 1; pin <= OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN; pin++) {
>>>> +			i = pci_swizzle_interrupt_pin(child, pin) - 1;
>>>> +			map_sz += 5 + addr_sz[i] + out_irq[i].args_count;
>>> and here we end up derefencing random memory which happens in my case to cause
>>> a massive allocation sometimes and that fails one of the assertions in the
>>> allocator.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest just setting addr_sz[xxx] = {}; above
>>> to ensure it's initialized. Then the if(ret) handling should not be needed
>>> as well as of_property_read_u32 should be side effect free I hope!
>>>   
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	int_map = kcalloc(map_sz, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	mapp = int_map;