public inbox for linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
	Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
Subject: IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXES & __pci_bus_assign_resources()
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 18:35:16 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd5144fc12eeb611a85d194bbccdcac577fc6084.camel@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)

Hi !

While working on consolidating resource assignment, I stumbled upon
something alpha does (and maybe others I haven't spotted yet):

On most platforms (not all), it uses the usual pair:

	pci_bus_size_bridges(bus);
	pci_bus_assign_resources(bus);

to reassign everything.

However, before doing so, it first calls pcibios_claim_one_bus() which,
on those platforms (ie those who don't set PCI_PROBE_ONLY), will
effectively claim only resources that have IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED.

Now, let's leave alone for now the fact that this is will really only
work if those resources aren't behind a bridge as, to the best of my
undertanding of the code at this point, we aren't going to take them
into account when sizing & locating bridges. But that's not my point
right now :-)

From what I can tell, these days, pci_bus_assign_resources() will
already claim those fixed resources via pdev_assign_fixed_resources().

However, it does so *after* it has assigned and claimed resoures for
all the sibling devices on that bus.

That looks wrong to me. Shouldn't we claim the fixed resources first ?
IE something like:

--- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
@@ -1345,11 +1345,12 @@ void __pci_bus_assign_resources(const struct pci_bus *bus,
 	struct pci_bus *b;
 	struct pci_dev *dev;
 
+	list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list)
+		pdev_assign_fixed_resources(dev);
+
 	pbus_assign_resources_sorted(bus, realloc_head, fail_head);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(dev, &bus->devices, bus_list) {
-		pdev_assign_fixed_resources(dev);
-
 		b = dev->subordinate;
 		if (!b)
 			continue;
?

Now, I suspect most of the time it happens to work due to the fact that
the fixed resources are generally IO resources in the legacy low ranges
( < 0x1000) and PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is *generally* set to 0x1000 but it still
sounds fishy to me.

I don't think I have HW at hand with that type of fixed stuff to test
with at the moment, so this is very much academic right now but I worry
that when I convert archs such as alpha who does that claiming before
the rest of the assignment, switching doing things the other way around
will break.

Any thoughts ?

Cheers,
Ben.
 


                 reply	other threads:[~2019-06-17  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

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=bd5144fc12eeb611a85d194bbccdcac577fc6084.camel@kernel.crashing.org \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mattst88@gmail.com \
    --cc=rth@twiddle.net \
    /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