On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 11:03:28AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
>Thanks for the clarifications Gavin. Aside from the WARN_ON() (which is not a
>major thing) everything looks good.
>
>Reviewed-By: Alistair Popple <alist...@popple.id.au>
>
Thanks, Alistair. I'm going to send a updated revision (v10) replacing pr_warn()
with WARN(). The detailed message is as below:
WARN(1, "Wrong reserved PE#%d on PHB#%d\n",
phb->ioda.reserved_pe_idx, phb->hose->global_number);
Thanks,
Gavin
>On Thu, 5 May 2016 10:40:33 Gavin Shan wrote:
>> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 09:53:51AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
>> >On Wed, 4 May 2016 16:48:53 Gavin Shan wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:17:51PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, 3 May 2016 15:41:31 Gavin Shan wrote:
>> >> >> This enables M64 window on P7IOC, which has been enabled on PHB3.
>> >> >
>> >> >Have we tested that this works with an adaptor? This looks to be
>> >> >enabling
>> >> >support for something that didn't previously work (64-bit BARs on P7IOC)?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The M64 isn't supported on P7IOC before, meaning the PCI device's M64
>> >> BAR is covered by PHB's M32 window. With the patch applied, the PCI
>> >> device's M64 BAR is covered by PHB's M64 window as below log I got
>> >> from vpl4. The kernel including the series of patches boots successfully
>> >> on vpl4 and all looks normal.
>> >
>> >So you're changing the way 64-bit BARs work on P7IOC to use a different bit
>> >of
>> >the hardware/firmware? This means it could break older systems if there is
>> >an issue with the M64 support. Other than the comments below the code looks
>> >reasonable. However I am assuming you've tested that cards with 64-bit BARs
>> >still function on P7 after this change as I'm not familiar enough to
>> >comment on
>> >the specific hardware details, although your comments make sense and match
>> >the
>> >code.
>> >
>>
>> Nope, it doesn't rely on changes in firmware. The old firmware enables and
>> exposes PHB M64 window. The kernel doesn't use it on P7IOC until this patch.
>> On VPL4, there is a IPR adapter (0000:60:00.0) as below kernel log indicates.
>> Its BAR#2 is M64 (64-bits prefetchable) BAR. The BAR#2 is covered by PHB's
>> M64
>> window with this patch. The PHB's M64 window is
>> [0x00003da800000000..0x00003dafffffffff].
>> After it's applied, the IPR and root filesystem resident in the disk drive
>> out
>> of it work fine.
>>
>> >> [ 0.246110] pci 0000:60:00.0: BAR 2: assigned [mem
>> >> 0x3da810000000-0x3da810ffffff 64bit pref]
>> >> [ 0.246218] pci 0000:60:00.0: BAR 0: assigned [mem
>> >> 0x3da081000000-0x3da08103ffff 64bit]
>> >> [ 0.246306] pci 0000:60:00.0: BAR 6: assigned [mem
>> >> 0x3da081040000-0x3da08105ffff pref]
>> >> [ 0.246392] pci 0000:60 : [PE# 001] Secondary bus 96 associated
>> >> with PE#1
>> >> [ 0.246484] pci 0000:60 : [PE# 001] DMA weight 15 (64), assigned
>> >> (0) 1 DMA32 segments
>> >> [ 0.246552] pci 0000:60 : [PE# 001] Setting up 32-bit TCE table
>> >> at 00000000..0fffffff
>> >>
>> >> >> Different from PHB3 where 16 M64 BARs are supported and each of
>> >> >> them can be owned by one particular PE# exclusively or divided
>> >> >> evenly to 256 segments, every P7IOC PHB has 16 M64 BARs and each
>> >> >> of them are divided to 8 segments. So every P7IOC PHB supports
>> >> >> 128 M64 segments in total. P7IOC has M64DT, which helps mapping
>> >> >> one particular M64 segment# to arbitrary PE#. PHB3 doesn't have
>> >> >> M64DT, indicating that one M64 segment can only be pinned to the
>> >> >> fixed PE#.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In order to unified M64 support M64 on P7IOC and PHB3, we just
>> >> >> provide 128 M64 segments on every P7IOC PHB and each of them is
>> >> >> pinned to the fixed PE# by bypassing the function of M64DT. In
>> >> >> turn, we just need different phb->init_m64() for P7IOC and PHB3
>> >> >> and maps M64 segment in pnv_ioda_reserve_m64_pe() for P7IOC, most
>> >> >> of the code are shared by them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gws...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >> >> ---
>> >> >> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 89
>> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> >> >> 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>> >> >b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>> >> >> index 37f22b0..a1b74ec 100644
>> >> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>> >> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
>> >> >> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@
>> >> >> #include "powernv.h"
>> >> >> #include "pci.h"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +#define PNV_IODA1_M64_NUM 16 /* Number of M64 BARs */
>> >> >> +#define PNV_IODA1_M64_SEGS 8 /* Segments per M64 BAR */
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> /* 256M DMA window, 4K TCE pages, 8 bytes TCE */
>> >> >> #define TCE32_TABLE_SIZE ((0x10000000 / 0x1000) * 8)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> @@ -246,6 +249,64 @@ static void pnv_ioda_reserve_dev_m64_pe(struct
>> >> >> pci_dev
>> >> >*pdev,
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> +static int pnv_ioda1_init_m64(struct pnv_phb *phb)
>> >> >> +{
>> >> >> + struct resource *r;
>> >> >> + int index;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + /*
>> >> >> + * There are 16 M64 BARs, each of which has 8 segments. So
>> >> >> + * there are as many M64 segments as the maximum number of
>> >> >> + * PEs, which is 128.
>> >> >> + */
>> >> >> + for (index = 0; index < PNV_IODA1_M64_NUM; index++) {
>> >> >> + unsigned long base, segsz = phb->ioda.m64_segsize;
>> >> >> + int64_t rc;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + base = phb->ioda.m64_base +
>> >> >> + index * PNV_IODA1_M64_SEGS * segsz;
>> >> >> + rc = opal_pci_set_phb_mem_window(phb->opal_id,
>> >> >> + OPAL_M64_WINDOW_TYPE, index, base, 0,
>> >> >> + PNV_IODA1_M64_SEGS * segsz);
>> >
>> >Has firmware always supported OPAL_M64_WINDOW_TYPE for P7IOC? If older
>> >versions
>> >don't support it what happens? Do we gracefully fall back to the old mode of
>> >allocating all BARs from the M32 window or does it break?
>> >
>>
>> Old firmware enables and exposes M64 window (OPAL_M64_WINDOW_TYPE), but
>> kernel
>> doesn't use it until this patch. If the OPAL call fails, errcode is returned.
>> The caller, pnv_pci_init_ioda_phb(), disables the window. It means the PCI
>> device M64 BARs will fail back to be covered by M32 window. The path is same
>> on PHB3 and P7IOC.
>>
>> >> >> + if (rc != OPAL_SUCCESS) {
>> >> >> + pr_warn(" Error %lld setting M64
>> >> >> PHB#%d-BAR#%d\n",
>> >> >> + rc, phb->hose->global_number, index);
>> >> >> + goto fail;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + rc = opal_pci_phb_mmio_enable(phb->opal_id,
>> >> >> + OPAL_M64_WINDOW_TYPE, index,
>> >> >> + OPAL_ENABLE_M64_SPLIT);
>> >> >> + if (rc != OPAL_SUCCESS) {
>> >> >> + pr_warn(" Error %lld enabling M64
>> >> >> PHB#%d-BAR#%d\n",
>> >> >> + rc, phb->hose->global_number, index);
>> >> >> + goto fail;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + /*
>> >> >> + * Exclude the segment used by the reserved PE, which
>> >> >> + * is expected to be 0 or last supported PE#.
>> >> >> + */
>> >> >> + r = &phb->hose->mem_resources[1];
>> >> >> + if (phb->ioda.reserved_pe_idx == 0)
>> >> >> + r->start += phb->ioda.m64_segsize;
>> >> >> + else if (phb->ioda.reserved_pe_idx == (phb->ioda.total_pe_num -
>> >> >> 1))
>> >> >> + r->end -= phb->ioda.m64_segsize;
>> >> >> + else
>> >> >> + pr_warn(" Cannot cut M64 segment for reserved PE#%d\n",
>> >> >> + phb->ioda.reserved_pe_idx);
>> >
>> >Should this be a WARN_ON()? If this condition can only exist because a
>> >future
>> >programmer changes the reserved_pe_idx then I think it should be a WARN_ON()
>> >as the above message would be too easy to miss.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, a WARN_ON() should be better.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gavin
>>
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + return 0;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> +fail:
>> >> >> + for ( ; index >= 0; index--)
>> >> >> + opal_pci_phb_mmio_enable(phb->opal_id,
>> >> >> + OPAL_M64_WINDOW_TYPE, index, OPAL_DISABLE_M64);
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + return -EIO;
>> >> >> +}
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> static void pnv_ioda_reserve_m64_pe(struct pci_bus *bus,
>> >> >> unsigned long *pe_bitmap,
>> >> >> bool all)
>> >> >> @@ -315,6 +376,26 @@ static unsigned int pnv_ioda_pick_m64_pe(struct
>> >> >> pci_bus
>> >> >*bus, bool all)
>> >> >> pe->master = master_pe;
>> >> >> list_add_tail(&pe->list, &master_pe->slaves);
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + /*
>> >> >> + * P7IOC supports M64DT, which helps mapping M64 segment
>> >> >> + * to one particular PE#. However, PHB3 has fixed
>> >> >> mapping
>> >> >> + * between M64 segment and PE#. In order to have same
>> >> >> logic
>> >> >> + * for P7IOC and PHB3, we enforce fixed mapping between
>> >> >> M64
>> >> >> + * segment and PE# on P7IOC.
>> >> >> + */
>> >> >> + if (phb->type == PNV_PHB_IODA1) {
>> >> >> + int64_t rc;
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + rc = opal_pci_map_pe_mmio_window(phb->opal_id,
>> >> >> + pe->pe_number,
>> >> >> OPAL_M64_WINDOW_TYPE,
>> >> >> + pe->pe_number /
>> >> >> PNV_IODA1_M64_SEGS,
>> >> >> + pe->pe_number %
>> >> >> PNV_IODA1_M64_SEGS);
>> >> >> + if (rc != OPAL_SUCCESS)
>> >> >> + pr_warn("%s: Error %lld mapping M64 for
>> >> >PHB#%d-PE#%d\n",
>> >> >> + __func__, rc, phb->hose-
>> >> >>global_number,
>> >> >> + pe->pe_number);
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> kfree(pe_alloc);
>> >> >> @@ -329,8 +410,7 @@ static void __init
>> >> >> pnv_ioda_parse_m64_window(struct
>> >> >pnv_phb *phb)
>> >> >> const u32 *r;
>> >> >> u64 pci_addr;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - /* FIXME: Support M64 for P7IOC */
>> >> >> - if (phb->type != PNV_PHB_IODA2) {
>> >> >> + if (phb->type != PNV_PHB_IODA1 && phb->type != PNV_PHB_IODA2) {
>> >> >> pr_info(" Not support M64 window\n");
>> >> >> return;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> @@ -364,7 +444,10 @@ static void __init
>> >> >> pnv_ioda_parse_m64_window(struct
>> >> >pnv_phb *phb)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> /* Use last M64 BAR to cover M64 window */
>> >> >> phb->ioda.m64_bar_idx = 15;
>> >> >> - phb->init_m64 = pnv_ioda2_init_m64;
>> >> >> + if (phb->type == PNV_PHB_IODA1)
>> >> >> + phb->init_m64 = pnv_ioda1_init_m64;
>> >> >> + else
>> >> >> + phb->init_m64 = pnv_ioda2_init_m64;
>> >> >> phb->reserve_m64_pe = pnv_ioda_reserve_m64_pe;
>> >> >> phb->pick_m64_pe = pnv_ioda_pick_m64_pe;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
