From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f182.google.com (mail-pf1-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) (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 6A2A210A01 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 04:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707886438; cv=none; b=JHvkHHP57DivxI8esSPGnlL7UQzZB/WMCPY3/0TblXQ8hhKgLdvMpO3DBjjUvMvst7P+F9P2wGPiyvzTIaOVPwN34JdFHQ+GQ+BVtTcBQ1lYK0eSV0QGgmP5i94HWAVQfCdnySavjmbajCygkhliUW4VBX/qDpHcGIDDZEriwcQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707886438; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8NLis7YVO2gTWthqPYdjtEO64icPaDYgb2pCG5nvqbM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=s532hq1zW8203eDBL1XCWZbvECt5IcWUolLPK+EILJedKgCuvir4g+jxSYVTN0RQANzWl/QAv8ZMaUy56BLSWXVhRt0b8V08OhgUZCxjguJmhIVDPI0wqvFiDLA0v0pUu0vSx9jQXRL0T59vJYIwkmbeHh7yeo9VZEtWSHM9Vh0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=UETADNZ3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="UETADNZ3" Received: by mail-pf1-f182.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6e0dcf0a936so281846b3a.0 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:53:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1707886435; x=1708491235; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DdprcBR4QLL2h3YRNv+cnNKVLEsWolwD0ki1YkcAuqI=; b=UETADNZ3kVfYZGLVZY4DEz6MK9x2j+JEx3LiBrIAKCyLb4VQhtZFSexf5wLUpnYQOQ /S0w6xBD5xTwzt9XPZjKvGtLFk5OY4SH998KdjAqD+8xmXDD5Bovr/t/6O2cPCYOeJ4F pzDGbrXrjzpxSNB0+r/BdMFIRHq6qf8Uz7+Ph+01vZo1ADuQyQ0uMNQicaiNqYeQ7Kzh ONiuz8IeAjxAIVcJ92QIwjYZ4QnzNRyVdY3z/x0X7Tj87BkYgQT0AE6QSGPUvC4kTFcm rg72CElAfnlZU3/rUQAWfPPsedhwwj9jj4Dseo+Q7M1E4nW+CDiCegMxEixVcGYqS2o+ nHkQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707886436; x=1708491236; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=DdprcBR4QLL2h3YRNv+cnNKVLEsWolwD0ki1YkcAuqI=; b=MQdTzphHlTWelpKOfw3DfM5aUt6/ghqeXa9eHTuqL8NlASnklRxB9VLI1FDbzFESGI m+gAxJHUed/vZauFTR38p7i4/GNW3g7bxYfdAfGP2kzpytii3fiN8TCpMyjPyAbMQgYW PQ7dCiWtq6t5Td9gZSJVLbURHajh0GNI2m77tYRLyQ6zGD/v1PZhglD90UpZT8cByy87 x8hAQjZMWpzuHNSK1zDk41r5r/DaRLWAKJL6eht08uT/YizVBANaENyor+pVQZp69fMT qNhjkf12NGzW/sianp81gtJQm4oI65ZPvXkK2VC6BY8KzDjQDhsGEQ+9vDe7LfEJO4zz WS+Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUwODhcgC32wJyzfELZ+esDlX3BE1ZrtxijDGErrD2ZZWPco7ALDOYPxQrPVnCNEHlBkszVkchm9WH5Y5rhOhO0b9WOSQBq2t4b X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyTrc2UEj4QRq0QDLTBctzxg3MYLTcKf9yx4sWxmovynCq9Jj1/ B/iCtlHqMBlPq8fkNqnkTTd2QYnmeblQNmVjaWvw2uG4oWmlOLByDqmWjXJHmgK8i6/uxLqh4df tJqx2 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF4rVatdmppyHlGhUyYCXR+PPvxbKeLkByn+WOHXk7bVpYzu0LZRHIW5309ZyZh/P03DI29rw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:ce04:0:b0:6e0:70ed:59c0 with SMTP id y4-20020a62ce04000000b006e070ed59c0mr1225525pfg.13.1707886435277; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:53:55 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUJ5cgoD3n/NbriKVEYu40IyAg4RglLzFkCkM1N3JhLn+NcSA/781BDDfXxK1YQZyvDSw4HMIGO31Bd4kR6f39q69PP7msBd86SzL9Jdr8hVrgOdnmOIqEqIB1hGmkw0xHnpCuAAksGfFOYKYlf582W9i0+MVojl+N/e/X+vMLzvJIl1SyZTmpHcFTaG6I6JzU4RZ0opiiRnOBmFtFaxUwEkCkhGsWnwytxjq9mg3rvf2fAfJUEmRbro4zKb40hGLenBt7ih840/xdjHOeRMdlBOi+wEs7a33Eqp3sekuEtb6viBroRLOTQFjAHPND6sOkG/Virio0D6PfpE84oz1bxQxSu3jmISz0Uf9fQmFs1vVHURhKlw0yxkMOselA= Received: from google.com (223.253.124.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.124.253.223]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h28-20020a056a00001c00b006e07eb192cfsm8325129pfk.59.2024.02.13.20.53.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:53:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:23:46 +0530 From: Ajay Agarwal To: Robin Murphy Cc: Serge Semin , Bjorn Helgaas , Manivannan Sadhasivam , Jingoo Han , Gustavo Pimentel , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Rob Herring , Manu Gautam , Sajid Dalvi , William McVicker , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: dwc: Strengthen the MSI address allocation logic Message-ID: References: <20240204112425.125627-1-ajayagarwal@google.com> <2kvgqhaitacl7atqf775vr2z3ty5qeqxuv5g3wflkmhgj4yk76@fsmrosfwobfx> <7cd42851-37cc-49d6-b9ad-74a256a73904@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@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: <7cd42851-37cc-49d6-b9ad-74a256a73904@arm.com> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:32:14PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 13/02/2024 2:52 am, Ajay Agarwal wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 07:53:19PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 10:12:44PM +0530, Ajay Agarwal wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 12:52:45AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 04:54:25PM +0530, Ajay Agarwal wrote: > > > > > > There can be platforms that do not use/have 32-bit DMA addresses > > > > > > but want to enumerate endpoints which support only 32-bit MSI > > > > > > address. The current implementation of 32-bit IOVA allocation can > > > > > > fail for such platforms, eventually leading to the probe failure. > > > > > > > > > > > > If there vendor driver has already setup the MSI address using > > > > > > some mechanism, use the same. This method can be used by the > > > > > > platforms described above to support EPs they wish to. > > > > > > > > > > > > Else, if the memory region is not reserved, try to allocate a > > > > > > 32-bit IOVA. Additionally, if this allocation also fails, attempt > > > > > > a 64-bit allocation for probe to be successful. If the 64-bit MSI > > > > > > address is allocated, then the EPs supporting 32-bit MSI address > > > > > > will not work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ajay Agarwal > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Changelog since v2: > > > > > > - If the vendor driver has setup the msi_data, use the same > > > > > > > > > > > > Changelog since v1: > > > > > > - Use reserved memory, if it exists, to setup the MSI data > > > > > > - Fallback to 64-bit IOVA allocation if 32-bit allocation fails > > > > > > > > > > > > .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 26 ++++++++++++++----- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > > > index d5fc31f8345f..512eb2d6591f 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > > > > > > @@ -374,10 +374,18 @@ static int dw_pcie_msi_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp) > > > > > > * order not to miss MSI TLPs from those devices the MSI target > > > > > > * address has to be within the lowest 4GB. > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > - * Note until there is a better alternative found the reservation is > > > > > > - * done by allocating from the artificially limited DMA-coherent > > > > > > - * memory. > > > > > > > > > > Why do you keep deleting this statement? The driver still uses the > > > > > DMA-coherent memory as a workaround. Your solution doesn't solve the > > > > > problem completely. This is another workaround. One more time: the > > > > > correct solution would be to allocate a 32-bit address or some range > > > > > within the 4GB PCIe bus memory with no _RAM_ or some other IO behind. > > > > > Your solution relies on the platform firmware/glue-driver doing that, > > > > > which isn't universally applicable. So please don't drop the comment. > > > > > > > > > ACK. > > > > > > > > > > + * Check if the vendor driver has setup the MSI address already. If yes, > > > > > > + * pick up the same. > > > > > > > > > > This is inferred from the code below. So drop it. > > > > > > > > > ACK. > > > > > > > > > > This will be helpful for platforms that do not > > > > > > + * use/have 32-bit DMA addresses but want to use endpoints which support > > > > > > + * only 32-bit MSI address. > > > > > > > > > > Please merge it into the first part of the comment as like: "Permit > > > > > the platforms to override the MSI target address if they have a free > > > > > PCIe-bus memory specifically reserved for that." > > > > > > > > > ACK. > > > > > > > > > > + * Else, if the memory region is not reserved, try to allocate a 32-bit > > > > > > + * IOVA. Additionally, if this allocation also fails, attempt a 64-bit > > > > > > + * allocation. If the 64-bit MSI address is allocated, then the EPs > > > > > > + * supporting 32-bit MSI address will not work. > > > > > > > > > > This is easily inferred from the code below. So drop it. > > > > > > > > > ACK. > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > > + if (pp->msi_data) > > > > > > > > > > Note this is a physical address for which even zero value might be > > > > > valid. In this case it's the address of the PCIe bus space for which > > > > > AFAICS zero isn't reserved for something special. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is a fair point. What do you suggest we do? Shall we define another > > > > op `set_msi_data` (like init/msi_init/start_link) and if it is defined > > > > by the vendor, then call it? Then vendor has to set the pp->msi_data > > > > there? Let me know. > > > > > > You can define a new capability flag here > > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h (see DW_PCIE_CAP_* macros) > > > , set it in the glue driver by means of the dw_pcie_cap_set() macro > > > function and instead of checking msi_data value test the flag for > > > being set by dw_pcie_cap_is(). > > > > > Sure, good suggestion. ACK. > > > > > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > + > > > > > > ret = dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); > > > > > > if (ret) > > > > > > dev_warn(dev, "Failed to set DMA mask to 32-bit. Devices with only 32-bit MSI support may not work properly\n"); > > > > > > @@ -385,9 +393,15 @@ static int dw_pcie_msi_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp) > > > > > > msi_vaddr = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, > > > > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > if (!msi_vaddr) { > > > > > > - dev_err(dev, "Failed to alloc and map MSI data\n"); > > > > > > - dw_pcie_free_msi(pp); > > > > > > - return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to alloc 32-bit MSI data. Attempting 64-bit now\n"); > > > > > > + dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); > > > > > > + msi_vaddr = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, > > > > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > + if (!msi_vaddr) { > > > > > > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to alloc and map MSI data\n"); > > > > > > + dw_pcie_free_msi(pp); > > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 08:40:48PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, something like that. Personally I'd still be tempted to try some > > > > > > mildly more involved logic to just have a single dev_warn(), but I think > > > > > > that's less important than just having something which clearly works. > > > > > > > > > > I guess this can be done but in a bit clumsy way. Like this: > > > > > > > > > > ret = dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)) || > > > > > !dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > if (ret) { > > > > > dev_warn(dev, "Failed to allocate 32-bit MSI target address\n"); > > > > > > > > > > dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); > > > > > ret = !dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > if (ret) { > > > > > dev_err(dev, "Failed to allocate MSI target address\n"); > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > As you pointed out already, this looks pretty clumsy. I think we should > > > > stick to the more descriptive and readable code that I suggested. > > > > > > I do not know which solution is better really. Both have pros and > > > cons. Let's wait for Bjorn, Mani or Robin opinion about this. > > > > > > -Serge(y) > > > > > Bjorn/Mani/Robin, > > Can you please provide your comment? > > FWIW I had a go at sketching out what I think I'd do, on top of the v3 > patch. Apparently I'm not in a too-clever-for-my-own-good mood today, > since what came out seems to have ended up pretty much just simplifying > the pre-existing code. I'll leave the choice up to you. > > Thanks, > Robin. > > ----->8----- > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > index 512eb2d6591f..7b68c65e5d11 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static int dw_pcie_msi_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp) > struct dw_pcie *pci = to_dw_pcie_from_pp(pp); > struct device *dev = pci->dev; > struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(dev); > - u64 *msi_vaddr; > + u64 *msi_vaddr = NULL; > int ret; > u32 ctrl, num_ctrls; > @@ -387,18 +387,16 @@ static int dw_pcie_msi_host_init(struct dw_pcie_rp *pp) > return 0; > ret = dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32)); > - if (ret) > - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to set DMA mask to 32-bit. Devices with only 32-bit MSI support may not work properly\n"); > - > - msi_vaddr = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, > - GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!ret) > + msi_vaddr = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, > + GFP_KERNEL); > if (!msi_vaddr) { > - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to alloc 32-bit MSI data. Attempting 64-bit now\n"); > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to configure 32-bit MSI address. Devices with only 32-bit MSI support may not work properly\n"); > dma_set_coherent_mask(dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64)); > msi_vaddr = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(u64), &pp->msi_data, > GFP_KERNEL); > if (!msi_vaddr) { > - dev_err(dev, "Failed to alloc and map MSI data\n"); > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to configure MSI address\n"); > dw_pcie_free_msi(pp); > return -ENOMEM; > } Thanks Robin for your suggestion. I will keep my patch but pick up the dev_err prints from your suggestion.