Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] pci, acpi: Match PCI config space accessors against platfrom specific ECAM quirks.

Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-02T15:19:38Z

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 3:35:34 PM CEST Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 02.06.2016 14:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 2:07:43 PM CEST Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> >> On 02.06.2016 13:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:41:01 AM CEST Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> >>>> +struct pci_ecam_ops *pci_mcfg_get_ops(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int bus_num = root->secondary.start;
> >>>> + int domain = root->segment;
> >>>> + struct pci_cfg_fixup *f;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!mcfg_table)
> >>>> + return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Match against platform specific quirks and return corresponding
> >>>> + * CAM ops.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * First match against PCI topology <domain:bus> then use OEM ID and
> >>>> + * OEM revision from MCFG table standard header.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + for (f = __start_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f < __end_acpi_mcfg_fixups; f++) {
> >>>> + if ((f->domain == domain || f->domain == PCI_MCFG_DOMAIN_ANY) &&
> >>>> + (f->bus_num == bus_num || f->bus_num == PCI_MCFG_BUS_ANY) &&
> >>>> + (!strncmp(f->oem_id, mcfg_table->header.oem_id,
> >>>> + ACPI_OEM_ID_SIZE)) &&
> >>>> + (f->oem_revision == mcfg_table->header.oem_revision))
> >>>> + return f->ops;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + /* No quirks, use ECAM */
> >>>> + return &pci_generic_ecam_ops;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> int pci_mcfg_lookup(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
> >>>
> >>> Can you explain the use of pci_ecam_ops instead of pci_ops here?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I wanted to get associated bus_shift and use it to setup configuration
> >> region properly before calling pci_ecam_create. Please see next patch.
> >>
> >
> > I see. It feels really odd to do it this way though, since having a
> > nonstandard bus_shift essentially means not using anything resembling
> > ECAM to start with.
> >
> > I realize that a lot of the host bridges are not ECAM, but because
> > of this, it would be more logical to have their own pci_ops instead
> > of pci_ecam_ops.
>
> Well, we have bus_shift there to express bus shift differentiation. So I
> would say we should change just structure name to prevent misunderstanding.

I'm not really convinced here. We use the bus_shift for two
completely different things in the end: for sizing the MMIO window
that gets mapped by ACPI and for the pci_ecam_map_bus() function
that isn't actually used for the typical fixups that override the
pci_ops.

I see now that this sneaks in an .init callback for the quirk
through the backdoor, by adding it to the pci_ecam_ops. I think
that is not good: if the idea is to have the config space access
be adapted to various quirks that is one thing, but if we actually
need a function to be called for the quirk we should do just that
and have it be obvious. That function can then override the
pci_ops.

Arnd