[PATCH] PCI: mvebu: Don't try to add an MBus window that already exists

[helgaas@kernel.org (Bjorn Helgaas)]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:57:34AM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 02.06.2016 15:18, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> >On Thu,  2 Jun 2016 14:52:47 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> >>Add a check to mvebu_pcie_add_windows() to detect, if an MBus window is
> >>already configured. If this is the case (base address, size, target and
> >>attribute are identical), then this window is not created. This fixes
> >>a problem I'm currently seeing on a custom Armada XP based board, which
> >>generates this error upon PCI rescanning (in this case via sysfs):
> >>
> >>$ echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/rescan
> >>mvebu_mbus: cannot add window '4:e8', conflicts with another window
> >>mvebu-pcie soc:pcie-controller: Could not create MBus window at [mem 0x9e000000-0x9e0fffff]: -22
> >
> >Thanks for the patch. I am not familiar with what happens during a PCI
> >rescan, but shouldn't the MBus windows be deleted and then re-added?
> 
> It does not happen in this rescan case.
> 
> >The pci-mvebu driver deletes the MBus windows for a given PCI device
> >when invalid memory base/limits are set in the emulated PCI bridge.
> >Shouldn't this happen over a rescan?
> 
> I'm not sure what *should* happen upon rescan. But testing shows, that
> no MBus window is removed upon rescan. I just tested what happens,
> if the PCI devices are "removed" via sysfs. And this also does not
> delete any of the MBus windows.
> 
> >If it doesn't, then the other question is whether the check you're
> >adding should be done in the PCI driver or in the MBus driver.
> >
> >In commit b566e782be32145664d96ada3e389f17d32742e5, we already relaxed
> >the checks done by the MBus driver, and since this commit we allow
> >different windows to have the same target/attribute.
> >
> >Should the MBus driver also allow re-creating a	window that
> >already exists, if all its properties are the same?
> 
> This sounds like a good idea to me. To move this detection / decision
> one layer up. So that it will work for other drivers using this
> MBus interface as well.

I don't know how you want to solve it, but it definitely should be
safe to write the bridge window registers multiple times, either with
the same values, a new invalid base/limit pair, or a new valid
base/limit pair.

A complete emulation should handle all those, including disposing of
an old valid window and replacing it with a new, different, valid
window.

And of course, it should handle individual 16-bit writes for the
base/limit of the 32-bit windows.

Bjorn