Re: [PATCH v11 11/20] cxl/pci: Add RCH downstream port AER register discovery

Terry Bowman
2023-10-09T14:55:44Z

Hi Jonathan,

I added responses inline below.

On 10/2/23 09:53, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:43:30 +0200
> Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com>
>>
>> Restricted CXL host (RCH) downstream port AER information is not currently
>> logged while in the error state. One problem preventing the error logging
>> is the AER and RAS registers are not accessible. The CXL driver requires
>> changes to find RCH downstream port AER and RAS registers for purpose of
>> error logging.
>>
>> RCH downstream ports are not enumerated during a PCI bus scan and are
>> instead discovered using system firmware, ACPI in this case.[1] The
>> downstream port is implemented as a Root Complex Register Block (RCRB).
>> The RCRB is a 4k memory block containing PCIe registers based on the PCIe
>> root port.[2] The RCRB includes AER extended capability registers used for
>> reporting errors. Note, the RCH's AER Capability is located in the RCRB
>> memory space instead of PCI configuration space, thus its register access
>> is different. Existing kernel PCIe AER functions can not be used to manage
>> the downstream port AER capabilities and RAS registers because the port was
>> not enumerated during PCI scan and the registers are not PCI config
>> accessible.
>>
>> Discover RCH downstream port AER extended capability registers. Use MMIO
>> accesses to search for extended AER capability in RCRB register space.
>>
>> [1] CXL 3.0 Spec, 9.11.2 - System Firmware View of CXL 1.1 Hierarchy
>> [2] CXL 3.0 Spec, 8.2.1.1 - RCH Downstream Port RCRB
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
>
> This doesn't look right. IIRC Co-dev tag should be just
> before the SoB.
>

Yes, that needs to be swapped.

>> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
>
> New day, fresh questions....
>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/cxl/core/core.h | 1 +
>> drivers/cxl/core/pci.c | 6 ++++++
>> drivers/cxl/core/regs.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/core.h b/drivers/cxl/core/core.h
>> index 45e7e044cf4a..f470ef5c0a6a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/core.h
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/core.h
>> @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ struct cxl_rcrb_info;
>> resource_size_t __rcrb_to_component(struct device *dev,
>> struct cxl_rcrb_info *ri,
>> enum cxl_rcrb which);
>> +u16 cxl_rcrb_to_aer(struct device *dev, resource_size_t rcrb);
>>
>> extern struct rw_semaphore cxl_dpa_rwsem;
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
>> index 6ba3b7370816..4c6c5c7ba5a3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
>> @@ -722,6 +722,12 @@ static bool cxl_report_and_clear(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds)
>>
>> void devm_cxl_setup_parent_dport(struct device *host, struct cxl_dport *dport)
>> {
>> + struct device *dport_dev = dport->dport_dev;
>> + struct pci_host_bridge *host_bridge;
>> +
>> + host_bridge = to_pci_host_bridge(dport_dev);
>> + if (host_bridge->native_cxl_error)
>> + dport->rcrb.aer_cap = cxl_rcrb_to_aer(dport_dev, dport->rcrb.base);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(devm_cxl_setup_parent_dport, CXL);
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
>> index e0fbe964f6f0..6e502f02899b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/regs.c
>> @@ -470,6 +470,41 @@ int cxl_setup_regs(struct cxl_register_map *map)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_setup_regs, CXL);
>>
>> +u16 cxl_rcrb_to_aer(struct device *dev, resource_size_t rcrb)
>> +{
>> + void __iomem *addr;
>> + u16 offset = 0;
>> + u32 cap_hdr;
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rcrb == CXL_RESOURCE_NONE))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (!request_mem_region(rcrb, SZ_4K, dev_name(dev)))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + addr = ioremap(rcrb, SZ_4K);
>> + if (!addr) {
>
> Given this handling exists, below, perhaps a goto?
Yes, will make that change.

> Also, why isn't this an error? A comment would be good for that.
>
The intent is to avoid failing the driver probe in the case of missing RCH
error handling.

>> + release_mem_region(rcrb, SZ_4K);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + cap_hdr = readl(addr + offset);
>> + while (PCI_EXT_CAP_ID(cap_hdr) != PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ERR) {
>> + offset = PCI_EXT_CAP_NEXT(cap_hdr);
>> + if (!offset)
>> + break;
>> + cap_hdr = readl(addr + offset);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (offset)
>
> Add a comment / specification reference for why an offset of 0 is not valid.
> Of the top of my head I'm not sure though there may be a requirement for
> something else coming first...
>

I can add spec documentation:

'For Extended Capabilities implemented in Configuration Space, this offset is
relative to the beginning of PCI-compatible Configuration Space and thus must
always be either 000h (for terminating list of Capabilities) or greater than 0FFh.' [1]

[1] - PCI 6.0 - 7.9.7.1 RCRB Header Extended Capability Header (Offset 00h)

Regards,
Terry

>> + dev_dbg(dev, "found AER extended capability (0x%x)\n", offset);
>> +
>> + iounmap(addr);
>> + release_mem_region(rcrb, SZ_4K);
>> +
>> + return offset;
>> +}
>> +
>> resource_size_t __rcrb_to_component(struct device *dev, struct cxl_rcrb_info *ri,
>> enum cxl_rcrb which)
>> {
>