From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6006C433DF for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 01:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9343920707 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 01:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="mQvoDeRV"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="DhBv92Se" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9343920707 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:References:To:From:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description :Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=boaYGOYSL2NE2P0R55qAkcaRhcPa8p56J1r7Yz2cFpE=; b=mQvoDeRV1hGAsW CTEvU1eJwsRxhRtpDxe6zCOIMqhhIMQFvXl525AtceH6SBRKvh8xQ/EVuxEYMVs6Oxwf/MeaK/xFl G17F8Y68DSZgPLpPQLa8RCMSUNL6zd0IFWNEt/f5a/VHxDU1GtukqXeDhcewy3v4MsTUahdcQ+5gc JsHCY83ACVjFxAxZpfpB0pa0+ng419sV/uFcswpb8jOgkue3gcYbR5t80535kEM7p8IdhqS5h/xm+ XNirI/OBps8yybbF4bITST55y8fApGWSAO2nP5MsX5mic5vzaK4lRr2+mr4ZKP8vRVmOR7QT6mN8a OWkSYgukP84VHD4myFvA==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jfZ47-0002N8-7Y; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 01:16:35 +0000 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jfZ44-0002Mh-7i for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 01:16:33 +0000 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0511GFBE077304; Sun, 31 May 2020 20:16:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1590974175; bh=nmBVOGZ6DigGZrEHfDNyY0pzJCmoX4ALlVYIJmH8ruU=; h=Subject:From:To:CC:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DhBv92SeT8NUFq0TfpZHoKtzpDOrYomFTV02VZQhPeTmUfo43amF0iyCBmyIZRURA W2J+kffABIadckRvm8g4OasEa+ttkI5E11foTqm9V9+6pNqYHHgXVBtHZLZvDHbGst 0QD/BMj29EFcADgh6J7ZLNS4m3+XWbyiUSc3vmBU= Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (dfle106.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.27]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0511GFQN088753 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 31 May 2020 20:16:15 -0500 Received: from DFLE103.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.24) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Sun, 31 May 2020 20:16:14 -0500 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DFLE103.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 31 May 2020 20:16:14 -0500 Received: from [10.250.233.85] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0511GBQt059820; Sun, 31 May 2020 20:16:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/14] PCI: cadence: Convert all r/w accessors to perform only 32-bit accesses From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I To: Rob Herring References: <20200522033631.32574-1-kishon@ti.com> <20200522033631.32574-4-kishon@ti.com> <457db3ae-e68a-d2fc-ba5f-5393ad464413@ti.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 06:46:10 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <457db3ae-e68a-d2fc-ba5f-5393ad464413@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200531_181632_401700_4001E0FC X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 23.08 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi , Arnd Bergmann , PCI , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Tom Joseph , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-omap , "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Rob, On 5/28/2020 3:36 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 5/27/2020 10:07 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:49 AM Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> On 5/26/2020 8:42 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:30 PM Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>> >>>>> On 5/22/2020 9:24 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:37 PM Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Certain platforms like TI's J721E using Cadence PCIe IP can perform only >>>>>>> 32-bit accesses for reading or writing to Cadence registers. Convert all >>>>>>> read and write accesses to 32-bit in Cadence PCIe driver in preparation >>>>>>> for adding PCIe support in TI's J721E SoC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking more closely I don't think cdns_pcie_ep_assert_intx is okay >>>>>> with this and never can be given the PCI_COMMAND and PCI_STATUS >>>>>> registers are in the same word (IIRC, that's the main reason 32-bit >>>>>> config space accesses are broken). So this isn't going to work at >>>>> >>>>> right, PCI_STATUS has write '1' to clear bits and there's a chance that it >>>>> could be reset while raising legacy interrupt. While this cannot be avoided for >>>>> TI's J721E, other platforms doesn't have to have this limitation. >>>>>> least for EP accesses. And maybe you need a custom .raise_irq() hook >>>>>> to minimize any problems (such as making the RMW atomic at least from >>>>>> the endpoint's perspective). >>>>> >>>>> This is to make sure EP doesn't update in-consistent state when RC is updating >>>>> the PCI_STATUS register? Since this involves two different systems, how do we >>>>> make this atomic? >>>> >>>> You can't make it atomic WRT both systems, but is there locking around >>>> each RMW? Specifically, are preemption and interrupts disabled to >>>> ensure time between a read and write are minimized? You wouldn't want >>>> interrupts disabled during the delay too though (i.e. around >>>> .raise_irq()). >>> >>> Okay, I'll add spin spin_lock_irqsave() in cdns_pcie_write_sz(). As you also >>> pointed below that delay for legacy interrupt is wrong and it has to be fixed >>> (with a later series). >> >> But you don't need a lock everywhere. You need locks in the callers >> (and only sometimes). > > Okay, the locks should be added only for registers where HOST can also write to > the same register? Maybe only raise_irq then.. > >> >>> How do you want to handle cdns_pcie_ep_fn_writew() now? Because now we are >>> changing the default implementation to perform only 32-bit access (used for >>> legacy interrupt, msi-x interrupt and while writing standard headers) and it's >>> not okay only for legacy interrupts for platforms other than TI. >> >> Now I'm wondering how set_msi is not racy in the current code with the >> host setting/clearing PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE? Maybe that bit is RO from >> the EP side? > > set_msi/set_msix is a one time configuration that is invoked before the host > establishes the link with the endpoint. I don't think we have to consider this > as racy. Can we try to close on this discussion please? Thanks Kishon > > Thanks > Kishon > >> >> Ultimately I think you're going to have to provide your own endpoint >> functions or you need accessors for specific registers like >> PCI_MSI_FLAGS. Then for example, you just rely on the 2 bytes before >> PCI_MSI_FLAGS being reserved and do a 32-bit access without a RMW. >> Trying to abstract this at the register read/write level is going to >> be fragile >> >> Rob >> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel