From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com (mail-ed1-f68.google.com [209.85.208.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75FFC17625F for ; Sun, 6 Oct 2024 11:20:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.68 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728213644; cv=none; b=QoZA2eOFeyIwhHhYIVreQLD5ey4Xe/2bRLhr2qu1BMjIfgSc7BHL8cFwGifeuwqXtymM/AWeprmhNmiUcOfwP+lnxkMBH4paNOW+JHvoO40IzfwKt4GRxrCjfQP9I02BwXa+tBIvrvqPF3bS8sCnEOsoIYEegZnkhph9YcpuUew= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728213644; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xwtqRkymQbWLyrHFQs3l8k1xM6HJQbYROF9P9jVE/4Q=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LyLmkyE1lxRrgRsdMJbNe+DKTCt4+jJ2oAiR6+Hd24lB9NTQ2MduSsNvgJZsyCS1oExm5Za3A44y16J56Q0UUsdmyTYxB5vtOlSYPLQI6U/0QkfbajBdL3drHsd64yKDSaF1EQeQW+W2JfmDvkjsNlEtrBzShZ8LWuOt2Mofl10= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=H4fDhIR/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.68 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="H4fDhIR/" Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5c8784e3bc8so4819401a12.1 for ; Sun, 06 Oct 2024 04:20:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=google; t=1728213641; x=1728818441; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rPsiLERRYU7D4j4sUXncuZrtdOCgoc8Hb9DOFm6I+ts=; b=H4fDhIR/jUnUJLOL4s73skEwo5qT+KAQdjwxLM2Ekz/Yfd3KBTlBBYN58+qucb9FMT H+h3H3YYaysKYcjGw/Qu8omgTDePQtYE9Ii8JWiy7Se7YFW/7r0wE2rGauAIjS143L13 onrxybd2iLH/0/CPQRkgCeMfISA5xdDmGJl7r0EUEyu6ZJfmBroZIQi3RV60oqJ9bNko Tp99pLtsDhHfZfRWbU76+JSmmdTFGlrbFuA9nRWuJ2pRlZbwDVHbZLCL2bykcpNCOFXA V/zYgg2O0JhNNzllhTNJYhH3JV9fJN1hUC0S1ZMXVzRW4DAUZt+Q58FV3ZIWlYALktuf qCug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728213641; x=1728818441; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=rPsiLERRYU7D4j4sUXncuZrtdOCgoc8Hb9DOFm6I+ts=; b=mBhek3wl9ZPZS9RVCy89ZUS1x39rk8SPJmu/6jEn1DkNfsj3hSCxkZNuejIeobQflw 0Hp8r11HMZdQuTaqlVi7xAYuo0s256K5yEaJYV5GMhkT0T7UCWPaTujSvizEbsYc+LyQ wiNpVXuWRAHp+VhKs9SYp+oed9B4ie7lpr4QsdDAGtJrGyYcg1LUiTn2qEwd3fbrcLZk QgK8zO6jNOi5EEHx0raU83IJzkEnczPReqbu+cTKwo4ZllT82HcdiCaOa4QKOcob1NXY hjaV5E2qST9KxYGiLYqHIaOrrluvNnq74le1tCrNmdaB/IWcJugKRh9xeDIv+lf8ioCs Sn9A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXVebdop3zLUcD88UXHSK4/rygP8Kf2xXCS0fNBdUop7aBXupbAk33B+HfNK4g0ZjOppEq7h9qokNLP@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyNwbWv6pteAnVV3nN97+zzObqcIND92YYP/BlQrEYgARRNJNk imKjTI6RPVZ5ueGJ8DRljZ1AyZkn1c2/IM/1PMurytN0LXWAK+mZpgLvzcVvDz0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG48id+lRY4xtL1ujqx4VpcR8QxySGV9q44wlS56hapCTBDQPNEacp1RsUNT7MPHUN2ohWifQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7f89:b0:a99:435c:89f2 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a99435c8ce0mr357354766b.63.1728213635990; Sun, 06 Oct 2024 04:20:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (host-79-32-222-228.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.32.222.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a640c23a62f3a-a993d92ed5dsm185689766b.63.2024.10.06.04.20.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 06 Oct 2024 04:20:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrea della Porta X-Google-Original-From: Andrea della Porta Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 13:20:51 +0200 To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Andrea della Porta , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Florian Fainelli , Broadcom internal kernel review list , Linus Walleij , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Derek Kiernan , Dragan Cvetic , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Nicolas Ferre , Claudiu Beznea , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Saravana Kannan , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones , Andrew Lunn , Stefan Wahren , Lizhi Hou Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] PCI: of_property: Sanitize 32 bit PCI address parsed from DT Message-ID: References: <20240928201717.GA99402@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240928201717.GA99402@bhelgaas> Hi Bjorn, On 15:17 Sat 28 Sep , Bjorn Helgaas wrote: ... > From your earlier email > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/Zszcps6bnCcdFa54@apocalypse): > > > Without this patch the range translation chain is broken, like this: > > > pcie@120000: <0x2000000 0x00 0x00 0x1f 0x00 0x00 0xfffffffc>; > > ~~~ chain breaks here ~~~ > > pci@0 : <0x82000000 0x1f 0x00 0x82000000 0x1f 0x00 0x00 0x600000>; > > dev@0,0 : <0x01 0x00 0x00 0x82010000 0x1f 0x00 0x00 0x400000>; > > rp1@0 : <0xc0 0x40000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x400000>; > > The cover letter said "RP1 is an MFD chipset that acts as a > south-bridge PCIe endpoint .. the RP1 as an endpoint itself is > discoverable via usual PCI enumeration". > > I assume pcie@120000 is the PCI host bridge and is already in the > original DT describing the platform. I assume pci@0 is a Root Port > and dev@0,0 is the RP1 Endpoint, and the existing code already adds > them as they are enumerated when pci_bus_add_device() calls > of_pci_make_dev_node(), and I think this series adds the rp1@0 > description. Correct. > > And the "ranges" properties are built when of_pci_make_dev_node() > eventually calls of_pci_prop_ranges(). With reference to sec 2.2.1.1 > of https://www.devicetree.org/open-firmware/bindings/pci/pci2_1.pdf > and > https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#ranges, > I *think* your example says: > > pcie@120000 has: > child phys.hi 0x02000000 n=0 p=0 t=0 ss=10b > child phys.mid,lo 0x00000000_00000000 > parent phys.hi,lo 0x0000001f_00000000 > length hi,lo 0x00000000_fffffffc > > which would make it a bridge where the child (PCI) address space is > relocatable non-prefetchable 32-bit memory space at > 0x00000000-0xfffffffc, and the corresponding parent address space is > 0x1f_00000000-0x1f_fffffffc. That means the host bridge applies an > address translation of "child_addr = parent_addr - 0x1f_00000000". > > pci@0 has: > child phys.hi 0x82000000 n=1 p=0 t=0 ss=10b > child phys.mid,lo 0x0000001f_00000000 > parent phys.hi 0x82000000 n=1 p=0 t=0 ss=10b > parent phys.mid,lo 0x0000001f_00000000 > length hi,lo 0x00000000_00600000 > > which would make it a PCI-to-PCI bridge (I assume a PCIe Root Port), > where the child (secondary bus) address space is the non-relocatable > non-prefetchable 32-bit memory space 0x1f_00000000-0x1f_005fffff and > the parent (primary bus) address space is also non-relocatable > non-prefetchable 32-bit memory space at 0x1f_00000000-0x1f_005fffff. > > This looks wrong to me because the pci@0 parent address space > (0x1f_00000000-0x1f_005fffff) should be inside the pcie@120000 child > address space (0x00000000-0xfffffffc), but it's not. Exactly, that example refers to the 'uncorrected' case, i.e. without the patch applied. > > IIUC, this patch clears the upper 32 bits in the pci@0 parent address > space. That would make things work correctly in this case because > that happens to be the exact translation of pcie@120000, so it results > in pci@0 parent address space of 0x00000000-0x005fffff. Right. I think we sould split it into two issues: [1] RP1 acknowledges a 32 bit BAR address from its config space while the device must be accessed using a 64 bit address (that is cpu address 0x1f_00000000), which sounds strange to me but I guess that is how the hw interconnect has been designed, so we need to cope with it. [2] I still think that the of_pci_set_address() function should be amended to avoid generating invalid 64 address when 32 bit flag is set. As you noted, fixing [2] will incidentally also let [1] work: I think we can try to solve [1] the proper way and maybe defer [2] for a separate patch. To solve [1] I've dropped this patch and tried to solve it from devicetree, modifying the following mapping: pcie@120000: <0x3000000 0x1f 0x00 0x1f 0x00 0x00 0xfffffffc>; so we now have a 1:1 64 bit mapping from 0x1f_00000000 to 0x1f_00000000. I thought it would result in something like this: pcie@120000: <0x3000000 0x1f 0x00 0x1f 0x00 0x00 0xfffffffc>; pci@0 : <0x82000000 0x1f 0x00 0x82000000 0x1f 0x00 0x00 0x600000>; dev@0,0 : <0x01 0x00 0x00 0x82010000 0x1f 0x00 0x00 0x400000>; rp1@0 : <0xc0 0x40000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x400000>; but it fails instead (err: "can't assign; no space") in pci_assign_resource() function trying to match the size using pci_clip_resource_to_region(). It turned out that the clipping is done against 32 bit memory region 'pci_32_bit',and this is failing because the original region addresses to be clipped wxxiereas 64 bit wide. The 'culprit' seems to be the function devm_of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources() dropping IORESOURCE_MEM_64 on any memory resource, which seems to be a change somewhat specific to a RK3399 case (see commit 3bd6b8271ee66), but I'm not sure whether it can be considered generic. So, I'm actually at an empasse here. Also, while taking a look at the resulting devicetree, I'm a bit confused by the fact that the parent address generated by of_pci_prop_ranges() for the pci@0,0 bridge seems to be taken from the parent address of the pcie@120000 node. Shouldn't it be taken from the child address of pcie@120000, instead? > > But I don't think it works in general because there's no requirement > that the host bridge address translation be that simple. For example, > if we have two host bridges, and we want each to have 2GB of 32-bit > PCI address space starting at 0x0, it might look like this: > > 0x00000002_00000000 -> PCI 0x00000000 (subtract 0x00000002_00000000) > 0x00000002_80000000 -> PCI 0x00000000 (subtract 0x00000002_80000000) > > In this case simply ignoring the high 32 bits of the CPU address isn't > the correct translation for the second host bridge. I think we should > look at each host bridge's "ranges", find the difference between its > parent and child addresses, and apply the same difference to > everything below that bridge. Not sure I've got this scenario straight: can you please provide the topology and the bit setting (32/64 bit) for those ranges? Also, is this scenario coming from a real use case or is it hypothetical? Many thanks, Andrea ...