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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 95DE1C433E0 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 21:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A561233CF for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 21:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727239AbhAGVGi (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:06:38 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33872 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725944AbhAGVGi (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:06:38 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0A53C0612F6 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 13:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id v5so5241345qtv.7 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 13:05:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jonmasters-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FadgRMCjqSfK1p2dGVB6UAyZWKTELanycTILncMf0V4=; b=sGo2d1y0YMj5ISVaYjlg8g3gbdADAkFDo37t100vvlXkZ7fFkSjTKQlrRrDsWKrCUM B9fjXz6qkpzTNKXFbHd55FTLqcolca7TUsDvwQ7Qw1p07zeCbweNnbTQPGLqeJC4qfLk pfsdgzeSMhVkyGhAvRqERvfnbdNMRB62RIUJlS2xH18378mAiB/Lihu8zG8NQhZs0PSb M1dVPiSWzEk+H73tJds4x3i+3rBdMB8kyna/2wZju6dAE98GHRyraV9Ep1HAVl7e/LJB BoWdt9dOB9e8LsAFNOmGTiNscYDBr5FnTi232BdHBrW3cbyDUb9qEdhBSddIfGWn7Vtu R27g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FadgRMCjqSfK1p2dGVB6UAyZWKTELanycTILncMf0V4=; b=EVHjIvPSzrKHdDPo00BuOy0n3CK+1KdcFXdm9UhbUcCLXsyJ5xtzI/jWDNQ4OWNuAb fGXFpgpE64j2dWKtijqA5wCtTavH7JX7VA6cwA7pyYo3QONMO0w+wB4/GxUlA9uybNLt 3/BtJi0H0BtZQnNd0kRDSOk02L8E0jHmbJQR5cEc6h1hC+FiJ/zZgxu8vZxHz7m1rYoe gr/R2bda/IvFK2W4ivWnJ9HdkDFPZK358lBrENk2RCrr3WiCykVK6L+ONVF1zw7NOBD6 Bql4lWGZA65Ux35B9SLgtzOUP/3Au3hp1hjUyBWwWQJ05wltxLb55T16wRem51FyI4FC 7fcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530KRZvHkpKBuwtb3qZzOZS2EH+kaN0zww280rXxKU2Vz0L3DLlo 4qye9SWrDzzBafQEAFpJ5MpaCA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzXggeoNZjF84y+uAKodjui60LUjdVr31/hQwxp5mzN5dQTNGemD+VGIcUnS8c9gEW3/0GGA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5514:: with SMTP id j20mr479421qtq.387.1610053556805; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 13:05:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from independence.bos.jonmasters.org (Boston.jonmasters.org. [50.195.43.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z20sm3873243qkz.37.2021.01.07.13.05.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jan 2021 13:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: PCI: Enable SMC conduit To: Will Deacon , Jeremy Linton Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20210105045735.1709825-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20210107181416.GA3536@willie-the-truck> From: Jon Masters Organization: World Organi{s,z}ation of Broken Dreams Message-ID: <56375cd8-8e11-aba6-9e11-1e0ec546e423@jonmasters.org> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:05:48 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210107181416.GA3536@willie-the-truck> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi will, everyone, On 1/7/21 1:14 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 10:57:35PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote: >> Given that most arm64 platform's PCI implementations needs quirks >> to deal with problematic config accesses, this is a good place to >> apply a firmware abstraction. The ARM PCI SMMCCC spec details a >> standard SMC conduit designed to provide a simple PCI config >> accessor. This specification enhances the existing ACPI/PCI >> abstraction and expects power, config, etc functionality is handled >> by the platform. It also is very explicit that the resulting config >> space registers must behave as is specified by the pci specification. >> >> Lets hook the normal ACPI/PCI config path, and when we detect >> missing MADT data, attempt to probe the SMC conduit. If the conduit >> exists and responds for the requested segment number (provided by the >> ACPI namespace) attach a custom pci_ecam_ops which redirects >> all config read/write requests to the firmware. >> >> This patch is based on the Arm PCI Config space access document @ >> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0115/latest > > Why does firmware need to be involved with this at all? Can't we just > quirk Linux when these broken designs show up in production? We'll need > to modify Linux _anyway_ when the firmware interface isn't implemented > correctly... I agree with Will on this. I think we want to find a way to address some of the non-compliance concerns through quirks in Linux. However... Several folks here (particularly Lorenzo) have diligently worked hard over the past few years - and pushed their patience - to accommodate hardware vendors with early "not quite compliant" systems. They've taken lots of quirks that frankly shouldn't continue to be necessary were it even remotely a priority in the vendor ecosystem to get a handle on addressing PCIe compliance once and for all. But, again frankly, it hasn't been enough of a priority to get this fixed. The third party IP vendors *need* to address this, and their customers *need* to push back. We can't keep having a situation in which kinda-sorta compliant stuff comes to market that would work out of the box but for whatever the quirk is this time around. There have been multiple OS releases for the past quite a few years on which this stuff could be tested prior to ever taping out a chip, and so it ought not to be possible to come to market now with an excuse that it wasn't tested. And yet here we still are. All these years and still the message isn't quite being received properly. I do know it takes time to make hardware, and some of it was designed years before and is still trickling down into these threads. But I also think there are cases where much more could have been done earlier. None of these vendors can possibly want this deep down. Their engineers almost certainly realize that just having compliant ECAM would mean that the hardware was infinitely more valuable being able to run out of the box software that much more easily. And it's not just ECAM. Inevitably, that is just the observable syndrome for worse issues, often with the ITS and forcing quirked systems to have lousy legacy interrupts, etc. Alas, this level of nuance is likely lost by the time it reaches upper management, where "Linux" is all the same to them. I would hope that can change. I would also remind them that if they want to run non-Linux OSes, they will also want to be actually compliant. The willingness of kind folks like Lorenzo and others here to entertain quirks is not necessarily something you will find in every part of the industry. But that all said, we have a situation in which there are still platforms out there that aren't fully compliant and something has to be done to support them because otherwise it's going to be even more ugly with vendor trees, distro hacks, and other stuff. Some of you in recent weeks have asked what I and others can do to help from the distro and standardization side of things. To do my part, I'm going to commit to reach out to assorted vendors and have a heart to heart with them about really, truly fully addressing their compliance issues. That includes Cadence, Synopsys, and others who need to stop shipping IP that requires quirks, as well as SoC vendors who need to do more to test their silicon with stock kernels prior to taping out. And I would like to involve the good folks here who are trying to navigate. I would also politely suggest that we collectively consider how much wiggle room there can be to use quirks for what we are stuck with rather than an SMC-based solution. We all know that quirks can't be a free ride forever. Those who need them should offer something strong in return. A firm commitment that they will never come asking for the same stuff in the future. Is there a way we can do something like that? Jon. -- Computer Architect