Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

Ben Widawsky
2020-11-14T01:37:26Z

On 20-11-13 12:26:03, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:43:52PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > CXL devices contain an array of capabilities that describe the
> > interactions software can interact with the device, or firmware running
> > on the device. A CXL compliant device must implement the device status
> > and the mailbox capability. A CXL compliant memory device must implement
> > the memory device capability.
> >
> > Each of the capabilities can [will] provide an offset within the MMIO
> > region for interacting with the CXL device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cxl/cxl.h | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/cxl/mem.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 2 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxl.h b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..02858ae63d6d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > +// Copyright(c) 2020 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>
> Fix comment usage (I think SPDX in .h needs "/* */")
>
> > +#ifndef __CXL_H__
> > +#define __CXL_H__
> > +
> > +/* Device */
> > +#define CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_REG 0x0
> > +#define CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_CAP_ID 0
> > +#define CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_ID(x) ((x) & 0xffff)
> > +#define CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_COUNT(x) (((x) >> 32) & 0xffff)
> > +
> > +#define CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_DEVICE_STATUS 1
> > +#define CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_PRIMARY_MAILBOX 2
> > +#define CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_SECONDARY_MAILBOX 3
> > +#define CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_MEMDEV 0x4000
>
> Strange that the first three are decimal and the last is hex.
>
> > +/* Mailbox */
> > +#define CXLDEV_MB_CAPS 0x00
> > +#define CXLDEV_MB_CAP_PAYLOAD_SIZE(cap) ((cap) & 0x1F)
>
> Use upper- or lower-case hex consistently. Add tabs to line things
> up.
>
> > +#define CXLDEV_MB_CTRL 0x04
> > +#define CXLDEV_MB_CMD 0x08
> > +#define CXLDEV_MB_STATUS 0x10
> > +#define CXLDEV_MB_BG_CMD_STATUS 0x18
> > +
> > +struct cxl_mem {
> > + struct pci_dev *pdev;
> > + void __iomem *regs;
> > +
> > + /* Cap 0000h */
> > + struct {
> > + void __iomem *regs;
> > + } status;
> > +
> > + /* Cap 0002h */
> > + struct {
> > + void __iomem *regs;
> > + size_t payload_size;
> > + } mbox;
> > +
> > + /* Cap 0040h */
> > + struct {
> > + void __iomem *regs;
> > + } mem;
> > +};
>
> Maybe a note about why READ_ONCE() is required?
>

I don't believe it's actually necessary. I will drop it.

> > +#define cxl_reg(type) \
> > + static inline void cxl_write_##type##_reg32(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, \
> > + u32 reg, u32 value) \
> > + { \
> > + void __iomem *reg_addr = READ_ONCE(cxlm->type.regs); \
> > + writel(value, reg_addr + reg); \
> > + } \
> > + static inline void cxl_write_##type##_reg64(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, \
> > + u32 reg, u64 value) \
> > + { \
> > + void __iomem *reg_addr = READ_ONCE(cxlm->type.regs); \
> > + writeq(value, reg_addr + reg); \
> > + } \
> > + static inline u32 cxl_read_##type##_reg32(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, \
> > + u32 reg) \
> > + { \
> > + void __iomem *reg_addr = READ_ONCE(cxlm->type.regs); \
> > + return readl(reg_addr + reg); \
> > + } \
> > + static inline u64 cxl_read_##type##_reg64(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, \
> > + u32 reg) \
> > + { \
> > + void __iomem *reg_addr = READ_ONCE(cxlm->type.regs); \
> > + return readq(reg_addr + reg); \
> > + }
> > +
> > +cxl_reg(status)
> > +cxl_reg(mbox)
> > +
> > +static inline u32 __cxl_raw_read_reg32(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, u32 reg)
> > +{
> > + void __iomem *reg_addr = READ_ONCE(cxlm->regs);
> > +
> > + return readl(reg_addr + reg);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u64 __cxl_raw_read_reg64(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, u32 reg)
> > +{
> > + void __iomem *reg_addr = READ_ONCE(cxlm->regs);
> > +
> > + return readq(reg_addr + reg);
> > +}
>
> Are the "__" prefixes here to leave space for something else in the
> future? "__" typically means something like "raw", so right now it
> sort of reads like "raw cxl raw read". So if you don't *need* the
> "__" prefix, I'd drop it.
>

The "__" prefix is because those functions really shouldn't be used except in
early initialization and perhaps for debugfs kinds of things. I can remove the
'raw' from the name, but I do consider this a raw read as it isn't going to
read/write to any particular function of a CXL device.

So unless you're deeply offended by it, I'd like to make it

__cxl_read/write_reg64()

> > +#endif /* __CXL_H__ */
> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/mem.c b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > index 8d9b9ab6c5ea..4109ef7c3ecb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/mem.c
> > @@ -5,11 +5,57 @@
> > #include <linux/io.h>
> > #include "acpi.h"
> > #include "pci.h"
> > +#include "cxl.h"
> >
> > -struct cxl_mem {
> > - struct pci_dev *pdev;
> > - void __iomem *regs;
> > -};
>
> Probably nicer if you put "struct cxl_mem" in its ultimate destination
> (drivers/cxl/cxl.h) from the beginning. Then it's easier to see what
> this patch adds because it's not moving at the same time.
>

Yes, this is sort of the wart again of 3 of us all working on the code at the
same time. Dan, you want to squash it into yours?

> > +static int cxl_mem_setup_regs(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> > +{
> > + u64 cap_array;
> > + int cap;
> > +
> > + cap_array = __cxl_raw_read_reg64(cxlm, CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_REG);
> > + if (CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_ID(cap_array) != CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_CAP_ID)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + for (cap = 1; cap <= CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_COUNT(cap_array); cap++) {
> > + void *__iomem register_block;
> > + u32 offset;
> > + u16 cap_id;
> > +
> > + cap_id = __cxl_raw_read_reg32(cxlm, cap * 0x10) & 0xffff;
> > + offset = __cxl_raw_read_reg32(cxlm, cap * 0x10 + 0x4);
> > + register_block = cxlm->regs + offset;
> > +
> > + switch (cap_id) {
> > + case CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_DEVICE_STATUS:
> > + dev_dbg(&cxlm->pdev->dev, "found Status capability\n");
>
> Consider including the address or offset in these messages to help
> debug? Printing a completely constant string always seems like a
> missed opportunity to me.
>

Sure. The main thing the debug message is trying to help notify is textual
versions of the caps, compared to what one might expect. I don't see offsets as
immediately useful, but they definitely do not hurt.

> > + cxlm->status.regs = register_block;
> > + break;
> > + case CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_PRIMARY_MAILBOX:
> > + dev_dbg(&cxlm->pdev->dev,
> > + "found Mailbox capability\n");
> > + cxlm->mbox.regs = register_block;
> > + cxlm->mbox.payload_size = CXLDEV_MB_CAP_PAYLOAD_SIZE(cap_id);
> > + break;
> > + case CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_SECONDARY_MAILBOX:
> > + dev_dbg(&cxlm->pdev->dev,
> > + "found UNSUPPORTED Secondary Mailbox capability\n");
> > + break;
> > + case CXL_CAPABILITIES_CAP_ID_MEMDEV:
> > + dev_dbg(&cxlm->pdev->dev,
> > + "found Memory Device capability\n");
> > + cxlm->mem.regs = register_block;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + dev_err(&cxlm->pdev->dev, "Unknown cap ID: %d\n", cap_id);
> > + return -ENXIO;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!cxlm->status.regs || !cxlm->mbox.regs || !cxlm->mem.regs)
> > + return -ENXIO;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> >
> > static struct cxl_mem *cxl_mem_create(struct pci_dev *pdev, u32 reg_lo, u32 reg_hi)
> > {
> > @@ -110,6 +156,10 @@ static int cxl_mem_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > if (IS_ERR(cxlm))
> > return -ENXIO;
> >
> > + rc = cxl_mem_setup_regs(cxlm);
> > + if (rc)
> > + return rc;
> > +
> > pci_set_drvdata(pdev, cxlm);
> >
> > return 0;
> > --
> > 2.29.2
> >