[PATCH v8 4/9] pci: OF: Fix the conversion of IO ranges into IO resources.

Rob Herring
2014-07-16T14:35:37Z

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 July 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:22:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >
>> > I looked at the other drivers briefly, and I think you indeed fix the Tegra
>> > driver with this but break the integrator driver as mentioned above.
>> > The other callers of of_pci_range_to_resource() are apparently not
>> > impacted as they recalculate the values they get.
>>
>> I would argue that integrator version is having broken assumptions. If it would
>> try to allocate that IO range or request the resource as returned currently by
>> of_pci_range_to_resource (without my patch) it would fail. I know because I did
>> the same thing in my host bridge driver and it failed miserably. That's why I
>> tried to patch it.
>
> The integrator code was just introduced and the reason for how it does things
> is the way that of_pci_range_to_resource() works today. We tried to cope with
> it and not change the existing behavior in order to not break any other drivers.
>
> It's certainly not fair to call the integrator version broken, it just works
> around the common code having a quirky interface. We should probably have
> done of_pci_range_to_resource better than it is today (I would have argued
> for it to return an IORESOURCE_MEM with the CPU address), but it took long
> enough to get that merged and I was sick of arguing about it.
>
>> If the IO space is memory mapped, then we use the port number, the io_offset
>> and the PCI_IOBASE to get to the virtual address that, when accessed, will
>> generate the correct addresses on the bus, based on what the host bridge has
>> been configured.
>>
>> This is the current level of my understanding of PCI IO.

What is io_offset supposed to be and be based on?

> Your understanding is absolutely correct, and that's great because very few
> people get that right. What I think we're really arguing about is what the
> of_pci_range_to_resource is supposed to return. As you and Bjorn both pointed
> out earlier, there are in fact two resources associated with the I/O window
> and the flaw in the current implementation is that of_pci_range_to_resource
> returns the numeric values for the IORESOURCE_MEM resource, but sets the
> type to IORESOURCE_IO, which is offset from that by PCI_IOBASE.
>
> You try to fix that by making it return the correct IORESOURCE_IO resource,
> which is a reasonable approach but you must not break drivers that rely
> on the broken resource while doing that.
>
> The approach that I would have picked is to return the IORESOURCE_MEM
> resource associated with the I/O window and pick a (basically random)
> IORESOURCE_IO resource struct based on what hasn't been used and then
> compute the appropriate io_offset from that. This approach of course
> would also have required fixing up all drivers relying on the current
> behavior.
>
> To be clear, I'm fine with you (and Bjorn if he cares) picking the
> approach you like here, either one of these works fine as long as the
> host drivers use the interface in the way it is defined.
>
>> Now, I believe Rob has switched entirely to using my series in some test that
>> he has run and he hasn't encountered any issues, as long as one remembers in
>> the host bridge driver to add the io_base offset to the .start resource. If
>> not then I need to patch pci_v3.c.
>
> The crazy part of all these discussions is that basically nobody ever uses
> I/O port access, so it's very hard to test and we don't even notice when
> we get it wrong, but we end up spending most of the time for PCI host controller
> reviews trying to get these right.

FWIW, I test i/o accesses with Versatile QEMU. The LSI53xxxx device in
the model has a kconfig option to use i/o accesses. However, I have
seen in the past this is an area where 2 wrongs can make a right.

Rob