Linux PCI subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com,
	treding@nvidia.com, swarren@nvidia.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
	linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	kthota@nvidia.com, mmaddireddy@nvidia.com, sagar.tv@gmail.com,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] PCI: tegra: Enable Relaxed Ordering only for Tegra20 & Tegra30
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 09:07:39 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210902140739.GA321447@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210901204045.GA236987@bjorn-Precision-5520>

[+cc Keith]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 03:40:47PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 08:34:28PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> > Currently Relaxed Ordering bit in the configuration space is enabled for
> > all PCIe devices as the quirk uses PCI_ANY_ID for both Vendor-ID and
> > Device-ID, but, as per the Technical Reference Manual of Tegra20 which is
> > available at https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/downloads#?search=tegra%202
> > in Sec 34.1, it is mentioned that Relaxed Ordering bit needs to be enabled in
> > its root ports to avoid deadlock in hardware. The same is applicable for
> > Tegra30 as well though it is not explicitly mentioned in Tegra30 TRM document,
> > but the same must not be extended to root ports of other Tegra SoCs or
> > other hosts as the same issue doesn't exist there.
> 
> While researching another thread about RO [1], I got concerned about
> setting RO for root ports.
> 
> Setting RO for *endpoints* makes sense: that allows (but does not
> require) the endpoint to issue writes that don't require strong
> ordering.
> 
> Setting RO for *root ports* seems more problematic.  It allows the
> root port to issue PCIe writes that don't require strong ordering.
> These would be CPU MMIO writes to devices.  But Linux currently does
> not have a way for drivers to indicate that some MMIO writes need to
> be ordered while others do not, and I think drivers assume that all
> MMIO writes are performed in order. 
> 
> We merged this patch as 7be142caabc4 ("PCI: tegra: Enable Relaxed
> Ordering only for Tegra20 & Tegra30") [2], so Tegra20 and Tegra30 root
> ports are allowed (but again, not required) to set the RO bit for MMIO
> writes initiated by a CPU.
> 
> Because I think drivers *rely* on MMIO writes being strongly ordered,
> this is a potential problem.  I think we should probably consider
> explicitly *disabling* RO in all root ports (with exceptions for
> quirks like this) in case it's set by any firmware.
> 
> So the question is, how do Tegra20 and Tegra30 actually work?  Do they
> ever actually set the RO bit for these MMIO writes?  If so, I think
> drivers are really at risk, and we probably should log some kind of
> warning.

Keith reminded me that writel_relaxed() is a way for drivers to
specify that they don't need strong ordering.  So I think the question
really is whether Tegra20 and Tegra30 set the RO bit for normal
writel() writes.  If they set RO for writel_relaxed() writes, that
should be perfectly fine.

> But if Tegra20 and Tegra30 just need "Enable Relaxed Ordering" set as
> a bug workaround and they never actually initiate PCIe writes with the
> RO bit set, maybe we should add a comment to that effect, but there
> should be no actual problem.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210830123704.221494-2-verdre@v0yd.nl
> [2] https://git.kernel.org/linus/7be142caabc4
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > V3:
> > * Modified commit message to make it more precise and explicit
> > 
> > V2:
> > * Modified commit message to include reference to Tegra20 TRM document.
> > 
> >  drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c | 7 +++++--
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c
> > index 9cc03a2549c0..241760aa15bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-tegra.c
> > @@ -787,12 +787,15 @@ DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x0bf1, tegra_pcie_fixup_class);
> >  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x0e1c, tegra_pcie_fixup_class);
> >  DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x0e1d, tegra_pcie_fixup_class);
> >  
> > -/* Tegra PCIE requires relaxed ordering */
> > +/* Tegra20 and Tegra30 PCIE requires relaxed ordering */
> >  static void tegra_pcie_relax_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >  {
> >  	pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_RELAX_EN);
> >  }
> > -DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, tegra_pcie_relax_enable);
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x0bf0, tegra_pcie_relax_enable);
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x0bf1, tegra_pcie_relax_enable);
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x0e1c, tegra_pcie_relax_enable);
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_FINAL(PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, 0x0e1d, tegra_pcie_relax_enable);
> >  
> >  static int tegra_pcie_request_resources(struct tegra_pcie *pcie)
> >  {
> > -- 
> > 2.17.1
> > 

      reply	other threads:[~2021-09-02 14:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-04 15:04 [PATCH V3] PCI: tegra: Enable Relaxed Ordering only for Tegra20 & Tegra30 Vidya Sagar
2019-07-04 16:09 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-07-05  8:57   ` Jon Hunter
2019-07-05  9:38     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-07-05 10:23       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-07-05 10:35         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2019-07-05 10:48           ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-07-09 11:02       ` Jon Hunter
2019-11-05 10:50         ` Jon Hunter
2019-11-06 15:58           ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2021-09-01 20:40 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2021-09-02 14:07   ` Bjorn Helgaas [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=20210902140739.GA321447@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=kthota@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=mmaddireddy@nvidia.com \
    --cc=sagar.tv@gmail.com \
    --cc=swarren@nvidia.com \
    --cc=treding@nvidia.com \
    --cc=vidyas@nvidia.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