From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugfix v3] x86/PCI/ACPI: Fix regression caused by commit 63f1789ec716
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:30:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5523DBE3.7000007@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1832914.AK2bZGkVxq@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 2015/4/7 8:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, April 03, 2015 10:04:11 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Hi Jiang,
>>
>> Sorry for my delayed response. I've been on vacation for a week and am
>> still trying to catch up.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:40:43AM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote:
<snip>
>>> Then commit 63f1789ec716("Ignore resources consumed by host bridge
>>> itself") ignores resources consumed by host bridge itself by checking
>>> IORESOURCE_WINDOW flag, which accidently removed the workaround in 2)
>>> above for BIOS bug .
>>
>> This is probably partly my fault.
>>
>> I think the ACPI spec intention is that every _CRS resource descriptor
>> should be interpreted as "Consumer," i.e., as resources consumed by the
>> device itself, unless it's marked otherwise. Only the following types can
>> be marked as "Producer":
>>
>> - Word/DWord/QWord/Extended address space descriptors,
>> - Extended interrupt descriptors,
>> - GPIO interrupt and I/O connections,
>> - I2C/SPI/UART serial bus resource descriptors
>
> So we're talking about the consumer/producer flag in those extended resource
> type descriptors, right?
>
> My understanding of that flag is that it doesn't say whether or not the device
> is a producer of a resource in a general sense. It only says whether the device
> consumes a resource provided by someone else (1) or it consumes a resources
> provided by itself (0).
Hi Rafael,
I have read the ACPI spec again.
You are right, the spec states that:
Consumer/Producer:
1–This device consumes this resource
0–This device produces and consumes this resource
This is different from my previous understanding.
Previously I thought "CONSUMER" means the device consumes the resource
by itself and "PRODUCER" means the device provides resource to other
devices.
So seems PCI host bridge has different interpretation of
CONSUMER/PRODUCER flag from ACPI spec.
>
>> With 66528fdd45b0 ("x86/PCI: parse additional host bridge window resource
>> types"), I made Linux treat Memory24, Memory32, and Memory32Fixed
>> descriptors in PCI host bridge _CRS as Producers. I did it because Windows
>> apparently does that (there are details in
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15817),
>
> It looks like it does that to indicate that those resources are provided
> by the host bridge itself (which is consistent with the consumer/producer
> flag interpretation above)
>
>> but I wasn't aware of any machines that required it. That was probably a
>> mistake because it didn't fix anything and it covered up ASL usage errors
>> like what PC Engines did.
>
> I don't think it is required. It only seems to allow Windows to consolidate
> the handling of host bridge resources.
>
>>> It's really costed us much time to figure out this whole picture.
>>> So we refine interface acpi_dev_filter_resource_type as below,
>>> which should be easier for maintence:
>>> 1) Caller specifies IORESOURCE_WINDOW flag to explicitly query resource
>>> for bridge(PRODUCER), otherwise it's querying resource for
>>> device(CONSUMER).
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>>> 2) Ignore IO port resources defined by acpi_resource_io and
>>> acpi_resource_fixed_io if IORESOURCE_WINDOW is specified.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>>> 3) Accpet IOMEM resource defined by acpi_resource_memory24,
>>> acpi_resource_memory32 and acpi_resource_fixed_memory32 for BIOS
>>> bugs, with comment to state it's workaround for BIOS bug.
>>
>> I don't like the fact that this is the behavior for all ACPI devices.
>> Prior to 593669c2ac0f, we had this behavior for PCI host bridges only.
>> I don't think this is what the spec envisioned, so I don't really like
>> doing it for all devices.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> 4) Accept IO port and IOMEM defined by acpi_resource_addressxx if
>>> a) IORESOURCE_WINDOW is specified and ACPI_PRODUCER is true
>>> b) IORESOURCE_WINDOW is not specified and ACPI_PRODUCER is false
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>>> Currently acpi_dev_filter_resource_type() is only used by ACPI pci
>>> host bridge and IOAPIC driver, so it shouldn't affect other drivers.
>>
>> We should assume it will eventually be used for all ACPI devices,
>> shouldn't we?
>
> I'm not sure about that, really. In fact, I'd restrict its use to devices
> types that actually can "produce" resources (ie. do not require the resources
> to be provided by their ancestors or to be available from a global pool).
>
> Otherwise we're pretty much guaranteed to get into trouble.
>
> And all of the above rules need to be documented in the kernel source tree
> or people will get confused.
You are right, we should limit acpi_dev_filter_resource_type() usages
to PCI host bridges and IOAPIC only.
>
>>> Another possible fix is to only ignore IO resource consumed by host
<snip>
>>> @@ -585,27 +591,46 @@ int acpi_dev_filter_resource_type(struct acpi_resource *ares,
>>> case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY24:
>>> case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_MEMORY32:
>>> case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32:
>>> + /*
>>> + * These types of resource descriptor should be used to
>>> + * describe resource consumption instead of resource provision.
>>> + * But some platforms, such as PC Engines APU.1C, reports
>>> + * resource provision by Memory32Fixed(). Please refer to:
>>> + * https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94221
>>> + * So accept it no matter IORESOURCE_WINDOW is specified or not.
>>> + */
>>> type = IORESOURCE_MEM;
>>
>> I think this means these resources will be accepted regardless of whether
>> the caller is looking for Consumer or Producer resources. To preserve the
>> behavior I added with 66528fdd45b0, we might be forced to do that for PCI
>> host bridges (or maybe we could just add a quirk for the PC Engines BIOS).
>>
>> But I don't think it matches the ACPI spec intent, so I'm not sure it's
>> right to do it for all devices.
>
> No, it isn't, which is why acpi_dev_filter_resource_type() should not be used
> for all devices.
Got it, will update comments.
Thanks!
Gerry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-07 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-30 2:40 [Bugfix v3] x86/PCI/ACPI: Fix regression caused by commit 63f1789ec716 Jiang Liu
2015-04-03 11:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-04 3:04 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-04-07 0:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-07 13:30 ` Jiang Liu [this message]
2015-04-08 5:48 ` Jiang Liu
2015-04-08 23:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-09 2:50 ` Jiang Liu
2015-04-09 21:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-09 22:00 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-04-09 22:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-10 0:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-13 4:31 ` Jiang Liu
2015-04-13 6:38 ` [Bugfix v5] " Jiang Liu
2015-04-13 6:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-13 12:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-04-13 12:04 ` [Bugfix v3] " Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5523DBE3.7000007@linux.intel.com \
--to=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.