From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: PJ Waskiewicz <ppwaskie@kernel.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cxl/acpi.c: Add buggy BIOS hint for CXL ACPI lookup failure
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 12:54:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240501175450.GA866742@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f5078550384a6b9be5a6d05415ea321332c7fb96.camel@kernel.org>
On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 08:28:22AM -0700, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 11:35 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 10:57:13PM -0700, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 08:22 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 02:05:26PM -0700,
> > > > > ppwaskie@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > > > From: PJ Waskiewicz <ppwaskie@kernel.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, Type 3 CXL devices (CXL.mem) can train using
> > > > > > host CXL drivers on Emerald Rapids systems. However, on
> > > > > > some production systems from some vendors, a buggy BIOS
> > > > > > exists that improperly populates the ACPI => PCI mappings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you be more specific about what this ACPI => PCI mapping
> > > > > is? If you already know what the problem is, I'm sure this
> > > > > is obvious, but otherwise it's not.
> > [..]
> > > It's just a buggy BIOS that doesn't supply _UID for an ACPI0016
> > > object, so you can't locate the corresponding CEDT entry, right?
> >
> > Correct, the problem is 100% contained to ACPI, and PCI is
> > innocent. The ACPI bug leads to failures to associate ACPI
> > host-bridge objects with CEDT.CHBS entries.
>
> Sorry for the confusion here!! I was definitely not trying to blame
> PCI. :)
>
> > ACPI to PCI association is then typical pci_root lookup, i.e.:
> >
> > pci_root = acpi_pci_find_root(hb->handle);
> > bridge = pci_root->bus->bridge;
>
> Yes, this here. In my use case, I'm starting with a PCIe/CXL device.
> In my driver, I try to discover the host bridge, and then the ACPI _UID
> so I can look things up in the CEDT.
>
> So I'm trying to do the programmatic equivalent of this:
>
> Start here in my PCIe/CXL host driver:
>
> /sys/devices/pci0000:37/firmware_node =>
> ../LNXSYSTM:00/LNXSYBUS:00/ACPI0016:02
>
> Retrieve _UID (uid) from /sys/devices/pci0000:37/firmware_node/uid
>
> Buggy BIOS, that above value resolves to CX02. In fact, it *should* be
> 49. This is very much a bug in the ACPI arena.
>
> The kernel APIs allowing me to walk this path would fail in the
> acpi_evaluate_object() when trying to pass in the bad _UID (CX02).
>
> Again, sorry for the confusion if it looked like I was trying to
> implicate PCI in any way. The whole intent here was to leave some
> breadcrumbs so anyone else running into this wouldn't be left
> scratching their heads wondering wtf was going on.
No worries, I didn't suspect a PCI issue here; I just wasn't clear on
what ACPI=>PCI mapping was involved. It sounds like there *is* no
such mapping in this picture (you find the ACPI object for a PCIe/CXL
host bridge, evaluate _UID from that object, and get a bogus value).
So the commit log text:
However, on some production systems from some vendors, a buggy BIOS
exists that improperly populates the ACPI => PCI mappings.
apparently refers to improper implementation of the _UID, which
doesn't return anything PCI related.
It also says:
This leads to the cxl_acpi driver to fail probe when it cannot find
the root port's _UID, in order to look up the device's CXL
attributes in the CEDT.
I *think* strictly speaking this should refer to the *host bridge's*
_UID, not the Root Port's, e.g., something like this:
However, on some production systems from some vendors, a buggy BIOS
provides a CXL host bridge _UID that doesn't match anything in the
CEDT.
Bjorn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-01 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-07 21:05 [PATCH 1/1] cxl/acpi.c: Add buggy BIOS hint for CXL ACPI lookup failure ppwaskie
2024-04-07 21:28 ` Lukas Wunner
2024-04-08 2:03 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-04-08 8:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-08 19:29 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-04-08 20:45 ` Dan Williams
2024-04-08 21:32 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-04-09 4:22 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-04-08 16:54 ` Dan Williams
2024-04-08 19:25 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-04-09 13:22 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2024-04-29 5:57 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-04-29 15:31 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2024-04-29 18:35 ` Dan Williams
2024-05-01 15:28 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-05-01 15:47 ` Dan Williams
2024-05-02 17:34 ` PJ Waskiewicz
2024-05-02 18:29 ` Dan Williams
2024-05-01 17:54 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2024-05-02 17:30 ` PJ Waskiewicz
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=20240501175450.GA866742@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ppwaskie@kernel.org \
/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