From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Received: from e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (e24smtp02.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.86])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3qgKF56jqszDq65
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu,  7 Apr 2016 07:51:53 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from localhost
 by e24smtp02.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only!
 Violators will be prosecuted
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> from <gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
 Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:51:49 -0300
Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (d24relay01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.16])
 by d24dlp02.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC751DC006D
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed,  6 Apr 2016 17:51:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (d24av05.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.44])
 by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
 u36KnTbD5144756
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:49:29 -0300
Received: from d24av05.br.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by d24av05.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id
 u36LphMJ005721
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:51:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] powerpc/pci: Assign fixed PHB number based on
 device-tree properties
To: Ian Munsie <imunsie@au1.ibm.com>
References: <1458337746-20337-1-git-send-email-gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1459971134-sup-6269@x230.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Cc: mikey <mikey@neuling.org>, Michael C Hollinger <mchollin@us.ibm.com>,
 Frederic Barrat <frederic.barrat@fr.ibm.com>,
 linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
 "Matthew R. Ochs" <mrochs@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 gwshan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Manoj Kumar <kumarmn@us.ibm.com>,
 paulus <paulus@samba.org>, "andrew.donnellan"
 <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>, bhelgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
 linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <570584EF.1010904@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:51:43 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1459971134-sup-6269@x230.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On 04/06/2016 04:38 PM, Ian Munsie wrote:
>> +    /* try fixed PHB numbering first, by checking archs and reading
>> +     * the respective device-tree property. */
>> +    if (machine_is(pseries)) {
>> +        regs = of_get_property(dn, "reg", NULL);
>> +        if (regs)
>> +            return (int)(be32_to_cpu(regs[1]) & 0xFFFF);
>> +    } else if (machine_is(powernv)) {
>> +        prop64 = of_get_property(dn, "ibm,opal-phbid", NULL);
>> +        if (prop64)
>> +            return (int)(be64_to_cpup(prop64) & 0xFFFF);
>> +    }
>
> I think these cases should still set the bit in phb_bitmap, otherwise a
> virtual PHB (e.g. as used in cxl/cxlflash) will be assigned PHB 0, and
> since that is already taken it will fail - we're already seeing a
> failure in Ubuntu Xenial since Canonical picked this patch up already
> (though have not confirmed that this is definitely the cause yet).
>
> There might also be some interesting races to think about here if a
> virtual PHB grabs a PHB number before the real one gets a chance.

This is a very interesting case I didn't think before. Thanks for 
pointing this Ian.

We can, as you suggested, set the bitmap in any case to avoid conflicts 
with virtual PHBs.

And in the case a virtual PHB grabs the bitmap before, we just need to 
add Michael's suggested check and fallback to bitmap PHB numbering in 
this case.

Do you think this is enough to avoid issues with cxl'a virtual PHBs?

Thanks,


Guilherme