From: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
yangyicong@huawei.com, will@kernel.org,
baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
rdunlap@infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
zhuo.song@linux.alibaba.com, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers/perf: add DesignWare PCIe PMU driver
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 18:08:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <09097e1e-fdf3-31ce-fadf-3c75dfc71fa2@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZGUAWxoEngmqFcLJ@bhelgaas>
On 2023/5/18 00:27, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:21AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2023 14:17:52 -0500
>> Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 04:03:04PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> ...
>
>>>> The approach used here is to separately walk the PCI topology and
>>>> register the devices. It can 'maybe' get away with that because no
>>>> interrupts and I assume resets have no nasty impacts on it because
>>>> the device is fairly simple. In general that's not going to work.
>>>> CXL does a similar trick (which I don't much like, but too late
>>>> now), but we've also run into the problem of how to get interrupts
>>>> if not the main driver.
>>>
>>> Yes, this is a real problem. I think the "walk all PCI devices
>>> looking for one we like" approach is terrible because it breaks a lot
>>> of driver model assumptions (no device ID to autoload module via udev,
>>> hotplug doesn't work, etc), but we don't have a good alternative right
>>> now.
>>>
>>> I think portdrv is slightly better because at least it claims the
>>> device in the usual way and gives a way for service drivers to
>>> register with it. But I don't really like that either because it
>>> created a new weird /sys/bus/pci_express hierarchy full of these
>>> sub-devices that aren't really devices, and it doesn't solve the
>>> module load and hotplug issues.
>>>
>>> I would like to have portdrv be completely built into the PCI core and
>>> not claim Root Ports or Switch Ports. Then those devices would be
>>> available via the usual driver model for driver loading and binding
>>> and for hotplug.
>>
>> Let me see if I understand this correctly as I can think of a few options
>> that perhaps are inline with what you are thinking.
>>
>> 1) All the portdrv stuff converted to normal PCI core helper functions
>> that a driver bound to the struct pci_dev can use.
>> 2) Driver core itself provides a bunch of extra devices alongside the
>> struct pci_dev one to which additional drivers can bind? - so kind
>> of portdrv handling, but squashed into the PCI device topology?
>> 3) Have portdrv operated under the hood, so all the services etc that
>> it provides don't require a driver to be bound at all. Then
>> allow usual VID/DID based driver binding.
>>
>> If 1 - we are going to run into class device restrictions and that will
>> just move where we have to handle the potential vendor specific parts.
>> We probably don't want that to be a hydra with all the functionality
>> and lookups etc driven from there, so do we end up with sub devices
>> of that new PCI port driver with a discover method based on either
>> vsec + VID or DVSEC with devices created under the main pci_dev.
>> That would have to include nastiness around interrupt discovery for
>> those sub devices. So ends up roughly like port_drv.
>>
>> I don't think 2 solves anything.
>>
>> For 3 - interrupts and ownership of facilities is going to be tricky
>> as initially those need to be owned by the PCI core (no device driver bound)
>> and then I guess handed off to the driver once it shows up? Maybe that
>> driver should call a pci_claim_port() that gives it control of everything
>> and pci_release_port() that hands it all back to the core. That seems
>> racey.
>
> Yes, 3 is the option I want to explore. That's what we already do for
> things like ASPM. Agreed, interrupts is a potential issue. I think
> the architected parts of config space should be implicitly owned by
> the PCI core, with interfaces à la pci_disable_link_state() if drivers
> need them.
>
I agree "walk all PCI devices looking for one we like" approach is terrible
in general. And I am glad to modify my code to adapt to a more suitable solution
when it comes.
For now, I will collect comments from v3 and v4 and send a new version after
addressed them. Any alternative option is welcomed, always :)
> Bjorn
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Shuai
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-19 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20220917121036.14864-1-xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
[not found] ` <20230417061729.84422-3-xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
[not found] ` <b1d9509c-8e8c-b05b-cbaf-576a7b2f99e7@arm.com>
[not found] ` <7aec4dbd-91d5-2a14-8779-f239a58cbbae@linux.alibaba.com>
2023-05-16 15:03 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers/perf: add DesignWare PCIe PMU driver Jonathan Cameron
2023-05-16 19:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-17 9:54 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-05-17 16:27 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2023-05-19 10:08 ` Shuai Xue [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=09097e1e-fdf3-31ce-fadf-3c75dfc71fa2@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yangyicong@huawei.com \
--cc=zhuo.song@linux.alibaba.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox