Re: [PATCH 09/24] PCI, powerpc: Register busn_res for root buses

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5202 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:51:30 -0800
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:35:58 +1100
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 11:24 -0800, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> > My point is that the interface between the arch and the PCI core
> >> > should be simply the arch telling the core "this is the range of bus
> >> > numbers you can use."  If the firmware doesn't give you the HW limits,
> >> > that's the arch's problem.  If you want to assume 0..255 are
> >> > available, again, that's the arch's decision.
> >> >
> >> > But the answer to the question "what bus numbers are available to me"
> >> > depends only on the host bridge HW configuration.  It does not depend
> >> > on what pci_scan_child_bus() found.  Therefore, I think we can come up
> >> > with a design where pci_bus_update_busn_res_end() is unnecessary.
> >>
> >> In an ideal world yes. In a world where there are reverse engineered
> >> platforms on which we aren't 100% sure how thing actually work under the
> >> hood and have the code just adapt on "what's there" (and try to fix it
> >> up -sometimes-), thinks can get a bit murky :-)
> >>
> >> But yes, I see your point. As for what is the "correct" setting that
> >> needs to be done so that the patch doesn't end up a regression for us,
> >> I'll have to dig into some ancient HW to dbl check a few things. I hope
> >> 0...255 will just work but I can't guarantee it.
> >>
> >> What I'll probably do is constraint the core to the values in
> >> hose->min/max, and update selected platforms to put 0..255 in there when
> >> I know for sure they can cope.
> >
> > But I think the point is, can't we intiialize the busn resource after
> > the first & last bus numbers have been determined?  E.g. rather than
> > Yinghai's current:
> > +       pci_bus_insert_busn_res(bus, hose->first_busno, hose->last_busno);
> > +
> >        /* Get probe mode and perform scan */
> >        mode = PCI_PROBE_NORMAL;
> >        if (node && ppc_md.pci_probe_mode)
> > @@ -1742,8 +1744,11 @@ void __devinit pcibios_scan_phb(struct pci_controller *hose)
> >                of_scan_bus(node, bus);
> >        }
> >
> > -       if (mode == PCI_PROBE_NORMAL)
> > +       if (mode == PCI_PROBE_NORMAL) {
> > +               pci_bus_update_busn_res_end(bus, 255);
> >                hose->last_busno = bus->subordinate = pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
> > +               pci_bus_update_busn_res_end(bus, bus->subordinate);
> > +       }
> >
> > we'd have something more like:
> >
> >        /* Get probe mode and perform scan */
> >        mode = PCI_PROBE_NORMAL;
> >        if (node && ppc_md.pci_probe_mode)
> > @@ -1742,8 +1744,11 @@ void __devinit pcibios_scan_phb(struct pci_controller *hose)
> >                of_scan_bus(node, bus);
> >        }
> >
> >        if (mode == PCI_PROBE_NORMAL)
> >                hose->last_busno = bus->subordinate = pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
> >
> > +       pci_bus_insert_busn_res(bus, hose->first_busno, hose->last_busno);
> >
> > since we should have the final bus range by then?  Setting the end to
> > 255 and then changing it again doesn't make sense; and definitely makes
> > the code hard to follow.
> 
> I have two issues here:
> 
> 1) hose->last_busno is currently the highest bus number found by
> pci_scan_child_bus().  If I understand correctly,
> pci_bus_insert_busn_res() is supposed to update the core's idea of the
> host bridge's bus number aperture.  (Actually, I guess it just updates
> the *end* of the aperture, since we supply the start directly to
> pci_scan_root_bus()).  The aperture and the highest bus number we
> found are not related, except that we should have:
> 
>     hose->first_busno <= bus->subordinate <= hose->last_busno
> 
> If we set the aperture to [first_busno - last_busno], we artificially
> prevent some hotplug.

Oh true, we'll need to allocate any extra bus number space somehow so
that hot plug of bridges is possible in the future w/o renumbering
(until our glorious future when we can move resources on the fly by
stopping drivers).

> 
> 2) We already have a way to add resources to a root bus: the
> pci_add_resource() used to add I/O port and MMIO apertures.  I think
> it'd be a lot simpler to just use that same interface for the bus
> number aperture, e.g.,
> 
>     pci_add_resource(&resources, hose->io_space);
>     pci_add_resource(&resources, hose->mem_space);
>     pci_add_resource(&resources, hose->busnr_space);
>     bus = pci_scan_root_bus(dev, next_busno, pci_ops, sysdata, &resources);
> 
> This is actually a bit redundant, since "next_busno" should be the
> same as hose->busnr_space->start.  So if we adopted this approach, we
> might want to eventually drop the "next_busno" argument.

Yeah that would be nice, the call would certainly make more sense that
way.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]