On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:56:29PM +0800, Jiahui Cen wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 2020/12/18 4:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:29:26PM +0800, Jiahui Cen wrote:
> >> There may be some differences in pci resource assignment between guest os
> >> and firmware.
> >>
> >> Eg. A Bridge with Bus [d2]
> >> -+-[0000:d2]---01.0-[d3]----01.0
> >>
> >> where [d2:01.00] is a pcie-pci-bridge with BAR0 (mem, 64-bit,
> >> non-pref) [size=256]
> >> [d3:01.00] is a PCI Device with BAR0 (mem, 64-bit, pref)
> >> [size=128K]
> >> BAR4 (mem, 64-bit, pref)
> >> [size=64M]
> >>
> >> In EDK2, the Resource Map would be:
> >> PciBus: Resource Map for Bridge [D2|01|00]
> >> Type = PMem64; Base = 0x8004000000; Length = 0x4100000;
> >> Alignment = 0x3FFFFFF
> >> Base = 0x8004000000; Length = 0x4000000; Alignment =
> >> 0x3FFFFFF; Owner = PCI [D3|01|00:20]
> >> Base = 0x8008000000; Length = 0x20000; Alignment =
> >> 0x1FFFF; Owner = PCI [D3|01|00:10]
> >> Type = Mem64; Base = 0x8008100000; Length = 0x100; Alignment
> >> = 0xFFF
> >>
> >> While in Linux, kernel will use 0x2FFFFFF as the alignment to calculate
> >> the PMem64 size, which would be 0x6000000.
> >>
> >> The diffences could result in resource assignment failure.
> >>
> >> Using _DSM #5 method to inform guest os not to ignore the PCI configuration
> >> that firmware has done at boot time could handle the differences.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jiahui Cen <cenjia...@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c b/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c
> >> index 071aa11b5c..2b490f3379 100644
> >> --- a/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c
> >> +++ b/hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi.c
> >> @@ -112,10 +112,19 @@ static void acpi_dsdt_add_pci_osc(Aml *dev)
> >> UUID = aml_touuid("E5C937D0-3553-4D7A-9117-EA4D19C3434D");
> >> ifctx = aml_if(aml_equal(aml_arg(0), UUID));
> >> ifctx1 = aml_if(aml_equal(aml_arg(2), aml_int(0)));
> >> - uint8_t byte_list[1] = {1};
> >> + uint8_t byte_list[1] = {0x21};
> >> buf = aml_buffer(1, byte_list);
> >
> >
> > Hmm what is this change for?
> >
> > I also noticed something weird.
> > Spec seems to say for _DSM for PCI Express Slot Information:
> >
> >
> > Arguments:
> > Arg0: UUID: E5C937D0-3553-4d7a-9117-EA4D19C3434D
> > Arg1: Revision ID: 2
> > Arg2: Function Index: 1
> > Arg3: Empty Package
> >
> >
> > how come we are comparing function index to 0 here?
> >
>
> PCI Firmware Spec says in 4.6.1. _DSM for PCI Express Slot Information
>
> Note: Function 0 is a generic Query function that is supported by _DSMs with
> any UUID and
> Revision ID. The definition of function 0 is generic to _DSM and specified in
> the ACPI Specification,
> Version 3.0 (or later).
>
>
> And ACPI Spec says in 9.1.1 _DSM (Device Specific Method)
>
> Return Value Information:
> If Function Index is zero, the return is a buffer containing one bit for each
> function index, starting with zero. Bit 0
> indicates whether there is support for any functions other than function 0
> for the specified UUID and Revision ID.
> If set to zero, no functions are supported (other than function zero) for the
> specified UUID and Revision ID. If set
> to one, at least one additional function is supported. For all other bits in
> the buffer, a bit is set to zero to indicate if
> that function index is not supported for the specific UUID and Revision ID.
> (For example, bit 1 set to 0 indicates that
> function index 1 is not supported for the specific UUID and Revision ID.)
>
>
> I have no idea whether the original code does aim to use _DSM #0
> by setting function index 0 (The return value seems not to be suitable
> with _DSM #1). But if it does, I think it is necessary to set bit 5
> in return value to indicate _DSM #5 function is supported.
So let's make it self documenting:
{
0x1 << 0 /* support for support for any functions other than function 0
*/ |
0x1 << 5 /* support for function 5 */
}
> >
> > Also, as long as we are changing this probably shouldn't hard-code
> > 1 as array size ...
> >
>
> Is a macro enough? Like #define RET_BUF_SIZE 2
Better to use
uint8_t byte_list[] = { ... };
And then ARRAY_SIZE(byte_list)
> >
> >> aml_append(ifctx1, aml_return(buf));
> >> aml_append(ifctx, ifctx1);
> >> +
> >> + /* PCI Firmware Specification 3.2
> >> + * 4.6.5. _DSM for Ignoring PCI Boot Configurations
> >
> > Note you must always quote the most recent spec that
> > your change refers to. This is so people can figure out
> > legacy guest compatibility.
> >
> > In this case I think this first appeard in 3.1 not 3.2
> >
>
> OK, I'll fix this.
>
> >> + * The UUID in _DSM in this context is
> >> + * {E5C937D0-3553-4D7A-9117-EA4D19C3434D}
> >
> > This is just five lines earier, I don't think we need it here.
> >
>
> Will remove.
>
> >> + */
> >> + ifctx1 = aml_if(aml_equal(aml_arg(2), aml_int(5)));
> >
> > add comment:
> > /* Arg2: Function Index: 5 */
>
> Will add.
>
> >
> >> + aml_append(ifctx1, aml_return(aml_int(0)));
> >
> >
> > add comment: /* 0 - do not ignore ... (quote spec I don't have it to hand)
> > */
> >
>
> Will add.
>
> Thanks,
> Jiahui
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> + aml_append(ifctx, ifctx1);
> >> aml_append(method, ifctx);
> >>
> >> byte_list[0] = 0;
> >> --
> >> 2.28.0
> >
> > .
> >
