From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f170.google.com (mail-pf1-f170.google.com [209.85.210.170]) (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 A594113AA36 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 13:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.170 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721915620; cv=none; b=hsaqxAeZGdBXftY7Gpy05a72QIUmk3RyMHROxULWrP11DVwm03Qn5mfKkbQ39kM0uCS8vGj2gW6gNhxr1omFSHo0a9i2FKYDT2X56rKq5LlTaWq/75SsLWNgoVmD8OPMvHf0vmp3y9xeCxf/YFcQ5rFRCB9aQClsf/u71PHoXW0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721915620; c=relaxed/simple; bh=waRrTO9DD5VynHOhWYHnhVJETQeekyhSd4eh2jilD3A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=aySZOTLuivWj9guf7lXspmDrFDH5A8bU1VSYPlNLr47s3R+QiG4gr6ETkBuzv1EdYHdjeYSCZscLDT2Ho/vh1kbcFmsVL+xhKPWzivNduzq/H46l2NEragbtwPBJEBVLRF74iIjMlkWToEcQ5KzI+Ku09NwPcZoBr3YxkB2P6qk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=OSJeIfpY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.170 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="OSJeIfpY" Received: by mail-pf1-f170.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-70d1c655141so846564b3a.1 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:53:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1721915618; x=1722520418; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HJB4XlzxFwVGN++iQ5ATIQ5vXnSodXfQe5qe9NiYd+U=; b=OSJeIfpYq5mh34uskAccyG451ot8TpKEnYr1JFnL1I2vJji7kRj0oGsq2YIoJ1p9Ta 0J1730AkBcvMMn4dpLIcWQbBBkhvxs8PZTjVQIAQ4Lf8JN3nizbcjNev6HsoYjotJSRN N7eQrhSNa/j11QwHl7fu3NH855QfZeJqRerk2KGdWwPlyR8FPMwgcarLa/RSterXJc1h rwcDx5gyfByOSRF6PFaBgVOYLH0dspBFctOWTU32a8vhWsNaGH/uSTWgstUvqVSSFECI 2T3OG0uv+WYwtMpuA7HXvjhRX/6Oe7Ja1BMA/dM2qhB79LP1ubDG/GWoiHac71jzF2yy Cr1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721915618; x=1722520418; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding: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=HJB4XlzxFwVGN++iQ5ATIQ5vXnSodXfQe5qe9NiYd+U=; b=gJyjD60i9XoM7bW2/fH4GblmDy25MgjRc/A0iTK7ihGlUlG81tUgGnozWgYImw5RkN 9MlKSIFpK16WUd/unBJDP09gz4LdpVttBz3Tq523PUNYLDXrdV0MNLPQ8JE8xMLzyE7K KiLHKO0c7CuDfMwKxpU/GPk5BXCNtj8YL4D0RIH4NQQ1Gc35N/hp3cjlNigN+M9lx92p kOMFWMjD6SpV4+LlhjGPbtBWc8yQTUFHRrUt/jqEU1Lou9XnCMEQWLjSUwmTzF2BoAKW CVIhr+pY7hguWuxTn3vgCODUp7cVs2Id2DIW0YlmKyUvleTc0CoA5F2B1n0aNJLOl651 jmEA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUcSFbc9R8VIdPNPfq6hyHHz6dYQ1hO4ifX4ylzweTgucV92YEgWNGnb4S+L8Q4cwBVmhbedkpgYoGVA5tM7WFgAe9U54dU4Y41mBHV X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzt2JusHkJnitEsPOvqkvwTq/02UKkit6bpXztQTqJp/qoG/KDe bZxKcii92vhBoYX+61aDvEAj4sew34A+DenAbY037AVN2HgB3MCxoy0Hn9gEcw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGtTpfD1RaA66Gx/ID0GTSPmTevYRrqHXez+GzWbZyFtmEmJNzXQjSnQS609+P1TF8R+3MgWg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:10d3:b0:70e:92e1:1366 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-70eae8f1565mr2160101b3a.16.1721915617789; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thinkpad ([220.158.156.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-70ead72ab97sm1174992b3a.92.2024.07.25.06.53.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:23:32 +0530 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam To: Rick Wertenbroek Cc: Niklas Cassel , rick.wertenbroek@heig-vd.ch, alberto.dassatti@heig-vd.ch, Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Bjorn Helgaas , Frank Li , Damien Le Moal , Lars-Peter Clausen , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PCI: endpoint: Introduce 'get_bar' to map fixed address BARs in EPC Message-ID: <20240725135332.GA2274@thinkpad> References: <20240719115741.3694893-1-rick.wertenbroek@gmail.com> <20240719115741.3694893-2-rick.wertenbroek@gmail.com> <20240725053348.GN2317@thinkpad> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:06:38AM +0200, Rick Wertenbroek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 7:33 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 06:48:27PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > > Hello Rick, > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 06:06:26PM +0200, Rick Wertenbroek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But like you suggested in the other mail, the right thing is to merge > > > > > alloc_space() and set_bar() anyway. (Basically instead of where EPF drivers > > > > > currently call set_bar(), the should call alloc_and_set_bar() (or whatever) > > > > > instead.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, if we merge both, the code will need to be in the EPC code > > > > (because of the set_bar), and then the pci_epf_alloc_space (if needed) > > > > would be called internally in the EPC code and not in the endpoint > > > > function code. > > > > > > > > The only downside, as I said in my other mail, is the very niche case > > > > where the contents of a BAR should be moved and remain unchanged when > > > > rebinding a given endpoint function from one controller to another. > > > > But this is not expected in any endpoint function currently, and with > > > > the new changes, the endpoint could simply copy the BAR contents to a > > > > local buffer and then set the contents in the BAR of the new > > > > controller. > > > > Anyways, probably no one is moving live functions between controllers, > > > > and if needed it still can be done, so no problem here... > > > > > > I think we need to wait for Mani's opinion, but I've never heard of anyone > > > doing so, and I agree with your suggested feature to copy the BAR contents > > > in case anyone actually changes the backing EPC controller to an EPF. > > > (You would need to stop the EPC to unbind + bind anyway, IIRC.) > > > > > > > Hi Rick/Niklas, > > > > TBH, I don't think currently we have an usecase for remapping the EPC to EPF. So > > we do not need to worry until the actual requirement comes. > > > > But I really like combining alloc() and set_bar() APIs. Something I wanted to do > > for so long but never got around to it. We can use the API name something like > > pci_epc_alloc_set_bar(). I don't like 'set' in the name, but I guess we need to > > have it to align with existing APIs. > > > > And regarding the implementation, the use of fixed address for BAR is not new. > > If you look into the pci-epf-mhi.c driver, you can see that I use a fixed BAR0 > > location that is derived from the controller DT node (MMIO region). > > > > But I was thinking of moving this region to EPF node once we add DT support for > > EPF driver. Because, there can be many EPFs in a single endpoint and each can > > have upto 6 BARs. We cannot really describe each resource in the controller DT > > node. > > > > Given that you really have a usecase now for multiple BARs, I think it is best > > if we can add DT support for the EPF drivers and describe the BAR resources in > > each EPF node. With that, we can hide all the resource allocation within the EPC > > core without exposing any flag to the EPF drivers. > > > > So if the EPF node has a fixed location for BAR and defined in DT, then the new > > API pci_epf_alloc_set_bar() API will use that address and configure it > > accordingly. If not, it will just call pci_epf_alloc_space() internally to > > allocate the memory from coherent region and use it. > > > > Wdyt? > > > > - Mani > > > > -- > > மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம் > > Hello Mani, thank you for your feedback. > > I don't know if the EPF node in the DT is the right place for the > following reasons. First, it describes the requirements of the EPF and > not the restrictions imposed by the EPC (so for example one function > requires the BAR to use a given physical address and this is described > in the DT EPF node, but the controller could use any address, it just > configures the controller to use the address the EPF wants, but in the > other case (e.g., on FPGA), the EPC can only handle a BAR at a given > physical address and no other address so this should be in the EPC > node). Second, it is very static, so the EPC relation EPF would be > bound in the DT, I prefer being able to bind-unbind from configfs so > that I can make changes without reboot (e.g., alternate between two or > more endpoint functions, which may have different BAR requirements and > configurations). > > For the EPFs I really think it is good to keep the BAR requirements in > the code for the moment, this makes it easier to swap endpoint > functions and makes development easier as well (e.g., binding several > different EPFs without reboot of the SoC they run on. In my typical > tests I bind one function, turn-on the host, do tests, turn-off the > host, make changes to an EPF, scp the new .ko on the SoC, rebind, > turn-on the host, etc.). For example, I alternate between pci-epf-test > (6 bars) and pci-epf-nvme (1 bar) of different sizes. > Ok, clearly the usecase I have for MHI is not the same as yours. MHI is a hardware entity and it has the registers at a fixed address. So defining it in the DT node made sense to me. But I haven't followed up with my proposal since I thought it is not worth the effort until I see more usecases for DT. That's why I was interested for a moment as I thought I got one :) Anyway, thanks for clearing it up. I now agree that we don't need DT node for your usecase. > However, I can see a world where both binding and configuring EPF from > DT and the way it is currently done (alloc/set bar in code) and bind > in configfs could exist together as each have their use cases. But > forcing the use of DT seems impractical. > > For combining pci_epf_alloc_space and pci_epc_set_bar into a single > function, everyone seems to agree on this one. > Yes. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்