| Message ID | 20210510234020.1330087-1-luzmaximilian@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] Revert "arm64: PCI: Exclude ACPI "consumer" resources from host bridge windows" | expand |
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:40:20AM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote: > The Microsoft Surface Pro X has host bridges defined as > > Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A08") /* PCI Express Bus */) // _HID: Hardware ID > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0A03") /* PCI Bus */) // _CID: Compatible ID > > Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current Resource Settings > { > Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate () > { > Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, > 0x60200000, // Address Base > 0x01DF0000, // Address Length > ) > WordBusNumber (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode, > 0x0000, // Granularity > 0x0000, // Range Minimum > 0x0001, // Range Maximum > 0x0000, // Translation Offset > 0x0002, // Length > ,, ) > }) > Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.PCI0._CRS.RBUF */ > } > > meaning that the memory resources aren't (explicitly) defined as > "producers", i.e. host bridge windows. > > Commit 8fd4391ee717 ("arm64: PCI: Exclude ACPI "consumer" resources from > host bridge windows") introduced a check that removes such resources, > causing BAR allocation failures later on: > > [ 0.150731] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: no space for [mem size 0x00100000] > [ 0.150744] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: failed to assign [mem size 0x00100000] > [ 0.150758] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: no space for [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] > [ 0.150769] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: failed to assign [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] > > This eventually prevents the PCIe NVME drive from being accessible. > > On x86 we already skip the check for producer/window due to some history > with negligent firmware. It seems that Microsoft is intent on continuing > that history on their ARM devices, so let's drop that check here too. > > Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> > --- > > Please note: I am not sure if this is the right way to fix that, e.g. I > don't know if any additional checks like on IA64 or x86 might be > required instead, or if this might break things on other devices. So > please consider this more as a bug report rather than a fix. > > Apologies for the re-send, I seem to have unintentionally added a blank > line before the subject. > > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 14 -------------- > 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) Adding Lorenzo to cc, as he'll have a much better idea about this than me. This is: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210510234020.1330087-1-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Will
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:58:36PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:40:20AM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote: > > The Microsoft Surface Pro X has host bridges defined as > > > > Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A08") /* PCI Express Bus */) // _HID: Hardware ID > > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0A03") /* PCI Bus */) // _CID: Compatible ID > > > > Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current Resource Settings > > { > > Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate () > > { > > Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, > > 0x60200000, // Address Base > > 0x01DF0000, // Address Length > > ) > > WordBusNumber (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode, > > 0x0000, // Granularity > > 0x0000, // Range Minimum > > 0x0001, // Range Maximum > > 0x0000, // Translation Offset > > 0x0002, // Length > > ,, ) > > }) > > Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.PCI0._CRS.RBUF */ > > } > > > > meaning that the memory resources aren't (explicitly) defined as > > "producers", i.e. host bridge windows. > > > > Commit 8fd4391ee717 ("arm64: PCI: Exclude ACPI "consumer" resources from > > host bridge windows") introduced a check that removes such resources, > > causing BAR allocation failures later on: > > > > [ 0.150731] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: no space for [mem size 0x00100000] > > [ 0.150744] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: failed to assign [mem size 0x00100000] > > [ 0.150758] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: no space for [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] > > [ 0.150769] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: failed to assign [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] > > > > This eventually prevents the PCIe NVME drive from being accessible. > > > > On x86 we already skip the check for producer/window due to some history > > with negligent firmware. It seems that Microsoft is intent on continuing > > that history on their ARM devices, so let's drop that check here too. > > > > Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> > > --- > > > > Please note: I am not sure if this is the right way to fix that, e.g. I > > don't know if any additional checks like on IA64 or x86 might be > > required instead, or if this might break things on other devices. So > > please consider this more as a bug report rather than a fix. > > > > Apologies for the re-send, I seem to have unintentionally added a blank > > line before the subject. > > > > --- > > arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 14 -------------- > > 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) > > Adding Lorenzo to cc, as he'll have a much better idea about this than me. > > This is: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210510234020.1330087-1-luzmaximilian@gmail.com Sigh. We can't apply this patch since it would trigger regressions on other platforms (IIUC the root complex registers would end up in the host bridge memory windows). I am not keen on reverting commit 8fd4391ee717 because it does the right thing. I think this requires a quirk and immediate reporting to Microsoft. Bjorn, what are your thoughts on this ? Thanks, Lorenzo
On 5/27/21 11:32 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:58:36PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:40:20AM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote: >>> The Microsoft Surface Pro X has host bridges defined as >>> >>> Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A08") /* PCI Express Bus */) // _HID: Hardware ID >>> Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0A03") /* PCI Bus */) // _CID: Compatible ID >>> >>> Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current Resource Settings >>> { >>> Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate () >>> { >>> Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, >>> 0x60200000, // Address Base >>> 0x01DF0000, // Address Length >>> ) >>> WordBusNumber (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode, >>> 0x0000, // Granularity >>> 0x0000, // Range Minimum >>> 0x0001, // Range Maximum >>> 0x0000, // Translation Offset >>> 0x0002, // Length >>> ,, ) >>> }) >>> Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.PCI0._CRS.RBUF */ >>> } >>> >>> meaning that the memory resources aren't (explicitly) defined as >>> "producers", i.e. host bridge windows. >>> >>> Commit 8fd4391ee717 ("arm64: PCI: Exclude ACPI "consumer" resources from >>> host bridge windows") introduced a check that removes such resources, >>> causing BAR allocation failures later on: >>> >>> [ 0.150731] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: no space for [mem size 0x00100000] >>> [ 0.150744] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: failed to assign [mem size 0x00100000] >>> [ 0.150758] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: no space for [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] >>> [ 0.150769] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: failed to assign [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] >>> >>> This eventually prevents the PCIe NVME drive from being accessible. >>> >>> On x86 we already skip the check for producer/window due to some history >>> with negligent firmware. It seems that Microsoft is intent on continuing >>> that history on their ARM devices, so let's drop that check here too. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> >>> Please note: I am not sure if this is the right way to fix that, e.g. I >>> don't know if any additional checks like on IA64 or x86 might be >>> required instead, or if this might break things on other devices. So >>> please consider this more as a bug report rather than a fix. >>> >>> Apologies for the re-send, I seem to have unintentionally added a blank >>> line before the subject. >>> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 14 -------------- >>> 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) >> >> Adding Lorenzo to cc, as he'll have a much better idea about this than me. >> >> This is: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210510234020.1330087-1-luzmaximilian@gmail.com > > Sigh. We can't apply this patch since it would trigger regressions on > other platforms (IIUC the root complex registers would end up in the > host bridge memory windows). > > I am not keen on reverting commit 8fd4391ee717 because it does the > right thing. > > I think this requires a quirk and immediate reporting to Microsoft. Since I wrote this I have found other arm64 devices with the same problem. I don't think that this is Microsoft exclusive anymore, but rather that this is a Qualcomm problem (Qualcomm SoC seems to be the common thread). See e.g. DSDTs in [1]. So it should probably be reported to them. Regards, Max [1]: https://github.com/aarch64-laptops/build/tree/dfce25bc12655713c7e1e0422b191e9c944e4fb2/misc
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:32:00AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:58:36PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:40:20AM +0200, Maximilian Luz wrote: > > > The Microsoft Surface Pro X has host bridges defined as > > > > > > Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A08") /* PCI Express Bus */) // _HID: Hardware ID > > > Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0A03") /* PCI Bus */) // _CID: Compatible ID > > > > > > Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current Resource Settings > > > { > > > Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate () > > > { > > > Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, > > > 0x60200000, // Address Base > > > 0x01DF0000, // Address Length > > > ) > > > WordBusNumber (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode, > > > 0x0000, // Granularity > > > 0x0000, // Range Minimum > > > 0x0001, // Range Maximum > > > 0x0000, // Translation Offset > > > 0x0002, // Length > > > ,, ) > > > }) > > > Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.PCI0._CRS.RBUF */ > > > } > > > > > > meaning that the memory resources aren't (explicitly) defined as > > > "producers", i.e. host bridge windows. > > > > > > Commit 8fd4391ee717 ("arm64: PCI: Exclude ACPI "consumer" resources from > > > host bridge windows") introduced a check that removes such resources, > > > causing BAR allocation failures later on: > > > > > > [ 0.150731] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: no space for [mem size 0x00100000] > > > [ 0.150744] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: failed to assign [mem size 0x00100000] > > > [ 0.150758] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: no space for [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] > > > [ 0.150769] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: failed to assign [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] > > > > > > This eventually prevents the PCIe NVME drive from being accessible. > > > > > > On x86 we already skip the check for producer/window due to some history > > > with negligent firmware. It seems that Microsoft is intent on continuing > > > that history on their ARM devices, so let's drop that check here too. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Please note: I am not sure if this is the right way to fix that, e.g. I > > > don't know if any additional checks like on IA64 or x86 might be > > > required instead, or if this might break things on other devices. So > > > please consider this more as a bug report rather than a fix. > > > > > > Apologies for the re-send, I seem to have unintentionally added a blank > > > line before the subject. > > > > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 14 -------------- > > > 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) > > > > Adding Lorenzo to cc, as he'll have a much better idea about this than me. > > > > This is: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210510234020.1330087-1-luzmaximilian@gmail.com > > Sigh. We can't apply this patch since it would trigger regressions on > other platforms (IIUC the root complex registers would end up in the > host bridge memory windows). > > I am not keen on reverting commit 8fd4391ee717 because it does the > right thing. > > I think this requires a quirk and immediate reporting to Microsoft. > > Bjorn, what are your thoughts on this ? In retrospect, I think 8fd4391ee717 (which I wrote), was probably a mistake. Sure, it's a nice idea to have PNP0A03 _CRS methods that work nicely as designed, by describing host bridge registers as "consumer" resources and host bridge windows as "producer" registers, instead of having the bridge registers in _CRS of an unrelated PNP0C02 device. But realistically, the PNP0A03/PNP0C02 issue is a solved problem, even though it's ugly, and I'm not sure why I thought Microsoft would see value in doing this differently on arm64 than on x86 and ia64. What would break if we reverted 8fd4391ee717? I guess any arm64 platforms that described host bridge register space in PNP0A03 _CRS "consumer" resources? And Windows probably doesn't work or isn't supported on those platforms? Bjorn
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:34:52AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: [...] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210510234020.1330087-1-luzmaximilian@gmail.com > > > > Sigh. We can't apply this patch since it would trigger regressions on > > other platforms (IIUC the root complex registers would end up in the > > host bridge memory windows). > > > > I am not keen on reverting commit 8fd4391ee717 because it does the > > right thing. > > > > I think this requires a quirk and immediate reporting to Microsoft. > > > > Bjorn, what are your thoughts on this ? > > In retrospect, I think 8fd4391ee717 (which I wrote), was probably a > mistake. > > Sure, it's a nice idea to have PNP0A03 _CRS methods that work nicely > as designed, by describing host bridge registers as "consumer" > resources and host bridge windows as "producer" registers, instead of > having the bridge registers in _CRS of an unrelated PNP0C02 device. > > But realistically, the PNP0A03/PNP0C02 issue is a solved problem, even > though it's ugly, and I'm not sure why I thought Microsoft would see > value in doing this differently on arm64 than on x86 and ia64. We hoped we could comply with the specs, given that we were starting from a clean slate (and not from ACPI tables cut and paste) > What would break if we reverted 8fd4391ee717? I guess any arm64 > platforms that described host bridge register space in PNP0A03 _CRS > "consumer" resources ? Yes. We would end up with that register space in the host bridge memory windows - this does not sound right. > And Windows probably doesn't work or isn't supported on those > platforms? By the look of it the answer is yes, Windows was not bootstrapped on those platforms given that I *assume* Windows does not discriminate between producer and consumer resources at all. Lorenzo
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c index 1006ed2d7c60..80f87fe0a2b8 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c @@ -94,19 +94,6 @@ int pcibios_root_bridge_prepare(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge) return 0; } -static int pci_acpi_root_prepare_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *ci) -{ - struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp; - int status; - - status = acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(ci); - resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &ci->resources) { - if (!(entry->res->flags & IORESOURCE_WINDOW)) - resource_list_destroy_entry(entry); - } - return status; -} - /* * Lookup the bus range for the domain in MCFG, and set up config space * mapping. @@ -184,7 +171,6 @@ struct pci_bus *pci_acpi_scan_root(struct acpi_pci_root *root) } root_ops->release_info = pci_acpi_generic_release_info; - root_ops->prepare_resources = pci_acpi_root_prepare_resources; root_ops->pci_ops = (struct pci_ops *)&ri->cfg->ops->pci_ops; bus = acpi_pci_root_create(root, root_ops, &ri->common, ri->cfg); if (!bus)
The Microsoft Surface Pro X has host bridges defined as Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A08") /* PCI Express Bus */) // _HID: Hardware ID Name (_CID, EisaId ("PNP0A03") /* PCI Bus */) // _CID: Compatible ID Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized) // _CRS: Current Resource Settings { Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate () { Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, 0x60200000, // Address Base 0x01DF0000, // Address Length ) WordBusNumber (ResourceProducer, MinFixed, MaxFixed, PosDecode, 0x0000, // Granularity 0x0000, // Range Minimum 0x0001, // Range Maximum 0x0000, // Translation Offset 0x0002, // Length ,, ) }) Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.PCI0._CRS.RBUF */ } meaning that the memory resources aren't (explicitly) defined as "producers", i.e. host bridge windows. Commit 8fd4391ee717 ("arm64: PCI: Exclude ACPI "consumer" resources from host bridge windows") introduced a check that removes such resources, causing BAR allocation failures later on: [ 0.150731] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: no space for [mem size 0x00100000] [ 0.150744] pci 0002:00:00.0: BAR 14: failed to assign [mem size 0x00100000] [ 0.150758] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: no space for [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] [ 0.150769] pci 0002:01:00.0: BAR 0: failed to assign [mem size 0x00004000 64bit] This eventually prevents the PCIe NVME drive from being accessible. On x86 we already skip the check for producer/window due to some history with negligent firmware. It seems that Microsoft is intent on continuing that history on their ARM devices, so let's drop that check here too. Signed-off-by: Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com> --- Please note: I am not sure if this is the right way to fix that, e.g. I don't know if any additional checks like on IA64 or x86 might be required instead, or if this might break things on other devices. So please consider this more as a bug report rather than a fix. Apologies for the re-send, I seem to have unintentionally added a blank line before the subject. --- arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 14 -------------- 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)