| Message ID | 20210624213345.3617-3-pali@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RESEND,1/3] PCI: aardvark: Fix checking for PIO Non-posted Request | expand |
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: [...] > -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) > { > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > u32 reg; > @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> > PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; > > - if (!status) > - return; > - > + /* > + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: > + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, > + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit > + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. > + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only > + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with > + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. > + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) > + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful > + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. > + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means > + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. > + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. > + */ > switch (status) { > + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: > + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { > + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; > + break; > + } > + /* Get the read result */ > + if (val) > + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > + /* No error */ > + strcomp_status = NULL; > + break; > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: > - strcomp_status = "UR"; > + if (val) { > + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ > + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; > + strcomp_status = NULL; > + } else { > + strcomp_status = "UR"; > + } > break; > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS: > - strcomp_status = "CRS"; > + if (val) { > + /* For reading, CRS is not an error status */ > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; Need Bjorn's input on this. I don't think this is what is expected from from a root complex according to the PCI specifications (depending on whether CSR software visibility is supported or not). Here we are fabricating a CRS completion value for all PCI config read transactions that are hitting a CRS completion status (and that's not the expected behaviour according to the PCI specifications and I don't think that's correct). > + strcomp_status = NULL; > + } else { > + strcomp_status = "CRS"; > + } > break; > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA: > strcomp_status = "CA"; > @@ -490,6 +529,9 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > break; > } > > + if (!strcomp_status) > + return 0; > + > if (reg & PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ) > str_posted = "Non-posted"; > else > @@ -497,6 +539,8 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > dev_err(dev, "%s PIO Response Status: %s, %#x @ %#x\n", > str_posted, strcomp_status, reg, advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ADDR_LS)); > + > + return -EFAULT; > } > > static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > @@ -703,8 +747,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > size, val); > > if (advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie)) { > - *val = 0xffffffff; > - return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > + /* > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > + * so caller tries to issue the request again insted of failing > + */ > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; Mmmm..here we are faking a CRS completion value to coerce the kernel into believing a CRS completion was received (which is not necessarily true) ? if advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie) == true, is that an HW error ? Lorenzo > + } else { > + *val = 0xffffffff; > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > + } > } > > /* Program the control register */ > @@ -729,15 +782,27 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > advk_writel(pcie, 1, PIO_START); > > ret = advk_pcie_wait_pio(pcie); > + if (ret < 0) { > + /* > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > + * so caller tries to issue the request again instead of failing > + */ > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > + } else { > + *val = 0xffffffff; > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > + } > + } > + > + /* Check PIO status and get the read result */ > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, val); > if (ret < 0) { > *val = 0xffffffff; > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > } > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > - > - /* Get the read result */ > - *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > if (size == 1) > *val = (*val >> (8 * (where & 3))) & 0xff; > else if (size == 2) > @@ -801,7 +866,9 @@ static int advk_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > if (ret < 0) > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, NULL); > + if (ret < 0) > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > } > -- > 2.20.1 >
On Friday 25 June 2021 12:04:29 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > [...] > > > -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) > > { > > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > > u32 reg; > > @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> > > PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; > > > > - if (!status) > > - return; > > - > > + /* > > + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: > > + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, > > + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit > > + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. > > + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only > > + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with > > + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. > > + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) > > + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful > > + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. > > + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means > > + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. > > + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. > > + */ > > switch (status) { > > + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: > > + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { > > + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; > > + break; > > + } > > + /* Get the read result */ > > + if (val) > > + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > + /* No error */ > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > + break; > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: > > - strcomp_status = "UR"; > > + if (val) { > > + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ > > + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > + } else { > > + strcomp_status = "UR"; > > + } > > break; > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS: > > - strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > + if (val) { > > + /* For reading, CRS is not an error status */ > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > Need Bjorn's input on this. Ok. > I don't think this is what is expected from > from a root complex according to the PCI specifications (depending on > whether CSR software visibility is supported or not). This patch / logic was written and reviewed by Marvell people as is mentioned in commit description. But I was not able to get any feedback from them about aardvark, so I have not put them into recipients of this patch... > Here we are fabricating a CRS completion value for all PCI config read > transactions that are hitting a CRS completion status (and that's not > the expected behaviour according to the PCI specifications and I don't > think that's correct). I see what what you mean. I think that for PCI_VENDOR_ID read request it is correct. But question is what we should return for other read requests. > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > + } else { > > + strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > + } > > break; > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA: > > strcomp_status = "CA"; > > @@ -490,6 +529,9 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > break; > > } > > > > + if (!strcomp_status) > > + return 0; > > + > > if (reg & PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ) > > str_posted = "Non-posted"; > > else > > @@ -497,6 +539,8 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > dev_err(dev, "%s PIO Response Status: %s, %#x @ %#x\n", > > str_posted, strcomp_status, reg, advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ADDR_LS)); > > + > > + return -EFAULT; > > } > > > > static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > @@ -703,8 +747,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > size, val); > > > > if (advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie)) { > > - *val = 0xffffffff; > > - return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > + /* > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again insted of failing > > + */ > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > Mmmm..here we are faking a CRS completion value to coerce the kernel > into believing a CRS completion was received (which is not necessarily > true) ? This part of patch was written by me. I chose to return "fake CRS" to let kernel / software to issue a new PCI_VENDOR_ID read request again after timeout. After some timeout previous PIO transfer should complete and therefore advk_pcie_pio_is_running returns false. > if advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie) == true, is that an HW error ? No. It indicates that software (kernel) was impatient for previous config read / write request and did not wait for previous completion. So at the time when kernel tried to issue a new (this) config read request, previous one was still running (advk_pcie_pio_is_running returned true) and therefore driver was not able to issue a new config read request. In patch 3/3 I increased wait timeout so this situation when advk_pcie_pio_is_running returns true should not happen. Or rather to say, I was not able to reproduce it anymore. > Lorenzo > > > + } else { > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > + } > > } > > > > /* Program the control register */ > > @@ -729,15 +782,27 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > advk_writel(pcie, 1, PIO_START); > > > > ret = advk_pcie_wait_pio(pcie); > > + if (ret < 0) { > > + /* > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again instead of failing > > + */ > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > + } else { > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + /* Check PIO status and get the read result */ > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, val); > > if (ret < 0) { > > *val = 0xffffffff; > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > } > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > - > > - /* Get the read result */ > > - *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > if (size == 1) > > *val = (*val >> (8 * (where & 3))) & 0xff; > > else if (size == 2) > > @@ -801,7 +866,9 @@ static int advk_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > if (ret < 0) > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, NULL); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > } > > -- > > 2.20.1 > >
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:04:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > [...] > > > -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) > > { > > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > > u32 reg; > > @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> > > PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; > > > > - if (!status) > > - return; > > - > > + /* > > + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: > > + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, > > + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit > > + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. > > + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only > > + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with > > + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. > > + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) > > + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful > > + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. > > + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means > > + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. > > + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. > > + */ > > switch (status) { > > + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: > > + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { > > + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; > > + break; > > + } > > + /* Get the read result */ > > + if (val) > > + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > + /* No error */ > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > + break; > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: > > - strcomp_status = "UR"; > > + if (val) { > > + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ > > + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; I think the comment is incorrect. Unsupported Request *is* an error status. But most platforms log it and fabricate ~0 data (CFG_RD_UR_VAL) to return to the CPU, and I think that's what you're doing here. So I think the code is fine, but the "not an error status" comment is wrong. Per the flowchart in PCIe r5.0, sec 6.2.5., fig 6-2, I think the hardware should be setting the "Unsupported Request Detected" bit in the Device Status register when this occurs. > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > + } else { > > + strcomp_status = "UR"; > > + } > > break; > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS: > > - strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > + if (val) { > > + /* For reading, CRS is not an error status */ > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > Need Bjorn's input on this. I don't think this is what is expected from > from a root complex according to the PCI specifications (depending on > whether CSR software visibility is supported or not). > > Here we are fabricating a CRS completion value for all PCI config read > transactions that are hitting a CRS completion status (and that's not > the expected behaviour according to the PCI specifications and I don't > think that's correct). Right. I think any config access (read or write) can be completed with a CRS completion (sec 2.3.1). Per sec 2.3.2, when CRS SV (in Root Control register, sec 7.5.3.12) is enabled and a config read that includes both bytes of the Vendor ID receives a CRS completion, we must return 0x0001 for the Vendor ID and 0xff for any additional bytes. Note that a config read of only the two Vendor ID bytes is legal and should receive 0x0001 data. But if CRS SV is disabled, I think config reads that receive CRS completions should fail the normal way, i.e., fabricate ~0 data. > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > + } else { > > + strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > + } > > break; > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA: > > strcomp_status = "CA"; > > @@ -490,6 +529,9 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > break; > > } > > > > + if (!strcomp_status) > > + return 0; > > + > > if (reg & PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ) > > str_posted = "Non-posted"; > > else > > @@ -497,6 +539,8 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > dev_err(dev, "%s PIO Response Status: %s, %#x @ %#x\n", > > str_posted, strcomp_status, reg, advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ADDR_LS)); > > + > > + return -EFAULT; > > } > > > > static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > @@ -703,8 +747,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > size, val); > > > > if (advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie)) { > > - *val = 0xffffffff; > > - return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > + /* > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again insted of failing > > + */ > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > Mmmm..here we are faking a CRS completion value to coerce the kernel > into believing a CRS completion was received (which is not necessarily > true) ? > > if advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie) == true, is that an HW error ? > > Lorenzo > > > + } else { > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > + } > > } > > > > /* Program the control register */ > > @@ -729,15 +782,27 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > advk_writel(pcie, 1, PIO_START); > > > > ret = advk_pcie_wait_pio(pcie); > > + if (ret < 0) { > > + /* > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again instead of failing > > + */ > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > + } else { > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + /* Check PIO status and get the read result */ > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, val); > > if (ret < 0) { > > *val = 0xffffffff; > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > } > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > - > > - /* Get the read result */ > > - *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > if (size == 1) > > *val = (*val >> (8 * (where & 3))) & 0xff; > > else if (size == 2) > > @@ -801,7 +866,9 @@ static int advk_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > if (ret < 0) > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, NULL); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > } > > -- > > 2.20.1 > >
On Monday 19 July 2021 18:12:27 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:04:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) > > > { > > > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > > > u32 reg; > > > @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> > > > PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; > > > > > > - if (!status) > > > - return; > > > - > > > + /* > > > + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: > > > + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, > > > + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit > > > + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. > > > + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only > > > + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with > > > + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. > > > + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) > > > + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful > > > + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. > > > + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means > > > + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. > > > + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. > > > + */ > > > switch (status) { > > > + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: > > > + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { > > > + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + /* Get the read result */ > > > + if (val) > > > + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > > + /* No error */ > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > + break; > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: > > > - strcomp_status = "UR"; > > > + if (val) { > > > + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ > > > + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; > > I think the comment is incorrect. Unsupported Request *is* an error > status. But most platforms log it and fabricate ~0 data > (CFG_RD_UR_VAL) to return to the CPU, and I think that's what you're > doing here. So I think the code is fine, but the "not an error > status" comment is wrong. Ok, and what we should driver set as return value for pci_ops.read callback in this case? > Per the flowchart in PCIe r5.0, sec 6.2.5., fig 6-2, I think the > hardware should be setting the "Unsupported Request Detected" bit in > the Device Status register when this occurs. Yes there is register in kernel's emulated PCIe bridge which at bit 19 has: Unsupported Request Detected - The core sets this bit to 1 when an unsupported request is received. Write this bit to 1 to clear. > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > + } else { > > > + strcomp_status = "UR"; > > > + } > > > break; > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS: > > > - strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > > + if (val) { > > > + /* For reading, CRS is not an error status */ > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > > Need Bjorn's input on this. I don't think this is what is expected from > > from a root complex according to the PCI specifications (depending on > > whether CSR software visibility is supported or not). > > > > Here we are fabricating a CRS completion value for all PCI config read > > transactions that are hitting a CRS completion status (and that's not > > the expected behaviour according to the PCI specifications and I don't > > think that's correct). > > Right. I think any config access (read or write) can be completed > with a CRS completion (sec 2.3.1). > > Per sec 2.3.2, when CRS SV (in Root Control register, sec 7.5.3.12) is > enabled and a config read that includes both bytes of the Vendor ID > receives a CRS completion, we must return 0x0001 for the Vendor ID and > 0xff for any additional bytes. Note that a config read of only the > two Vendor ID bytes is legal and should receive 0x0001 data. > > But if CRS SV is disabled, I think config reads that receive CRS > completions should fail the normal way, i.e., fabricate ~0 data. In PCIe base 2.0 is: For other Configuration Requests, or when CRS Software Visibility is not enabled, the Root Complex will generally re-issue the Configuration Request until it completes with a status other than CRS as described in Section 2.3.2. So what should pci-aardvark driver in this case do? Return ~0 or re-send this config read request (and how many times)? Also this relates to previous discussion about PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20210507152542.sd54lk7bk56qapf3@pali/ > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > + } else { > > > + strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > > + } > > > break; > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA: > > > strcomp_status = "CA"; > > > @@ -490,6 +529,9 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > break; > > > } > > > > > > + if (!strcomp_status) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > if (reg & PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ) > > > str_posted = "Non-posted"; > > > else > > > @@ -497,6 +539,8 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > > dev_err(dev, "%s PIO Response Status: %s, %#x @ %#x\n", > > > str_posted, strcomp_status, reg, advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ADDR_LS)); > > > + > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > } > > > > > > static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > @@ -703,8 +747,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > size, val); > > > > > > if (advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie)) { > > > - *val = 0xffffffff; > > > - return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > + /* > > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again insted of failing > > > + */ > > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > > Mmmm..here we are faking a CRS completion value to coerce the kernel > > into believing a CRS completion was received (which is not necessarily > > true) ? > > > > if advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie) == true, is that an HW error ? > > > > Lorenzo > > > > > + } else { > > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > + } > > > } > > > > > > /* Program the control register */ > > > @@ -729,15 +782,27 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > advk_writel(pcie, 1, PIO_START); > > > > > > ret = advk_pcie_wait_pio(pcie); > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > + /* > > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again instead of failing > > > + */ > > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > + } else { > > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* Check PIO status and get the read result */ > > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, val); > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > *val = 0xffffffff; > > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > } > > > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > > - > > > - /* Get the read result */ > > > - *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > > if (size == 1) > > > *val = (*val >> (8 * (where & 3))) & 0xff; > > > else if (size == 2) > > > @@ -801,7 +866,9 @@ static int advk_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > if (ret < 0) > > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, NULL); > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > > return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > } > > > -- > > > 2.20.1 > > >
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Monday 19 July 2021 18:12:27 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:04:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) > > > > { > > > > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > > > > u32 reg; > > > > @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> > > > > PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; > > > > > > > > - if (!status) > > > > - return; > > > > - > > > > + /* > > > > + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: > > > > + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, > > > > + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit > > > > + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. > > > > + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only > > > > + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with > > > > + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. > > > > + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) > > > > + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful > > > > + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. > > > > + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means > > > > + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. > > > > + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. > > > > + */ > > > > switch (status) { > > > > + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: > > > > + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { > > > > + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; > > > > + break; > > > > + } > > > > + /* Get the read result */ > > > > + if (val) > > > > + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > > > + /* No error */ > > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > > + break; > > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: > > > > - strcomp_status = "UR"; > > > > + if (val) { > > > > + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; > > > > I think the comment is incorrect. Unsupported Request *is* an error > > status. But most platforms log it and fabricate ~0 data > > (CFG_RD_UR_VAL) to return to the CPU, and I think that's what you're > > doing here. So I think the code is fine, but the "not an error > > status" comment is wrong. > > Ok, and what we should driver set as return value for pci_ops.read > callback in this case? On most platforms, pci_ops.read() does not check for failure, so it returns PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL in this case. > > Per the flowchart in PCIe r5.0, sec 6.2.5., fig 6-2, I think the > > hardware should be setting the "Unsupported Request Detected" bit in > > the Device Status register when this occurs. > > Yes there is register in kernel's emulated PCIe bridge which at bit 19 > has: Unsupported Request Detected - The core sets this bit to 1 when an > unsupported request is received. Write this bit to 1 to clear. I guess this bit 19 is the same as bit 3 in the 16-bit Device Status register? Bit 19 if you look at Device Control + Device Status as a single 32-bit register? > > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > > + } else { > > > > + strcomp_status = "UR"; > > > > + } > > > > break; > > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS: > > > > - strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > > > + if (val) { > > > > + /* For reading, CRS is not an error status */ > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > > > > Need Bjorn's input on this. I don't think this is what is expected from > > > from a root complex according to the PCI specifications (depending on > > > whether CSR software visibility is supported or not). > > > > > > Here we are fabricating a CRS completion value for all PCI config read > > > transactions that are hitting a CRS completion status (and that's not > > > the expected behaviour according to the PCI specifications and I don't > > > think that's correct). > > > > Right. I think any config access (read or write) can be completed > > with a CRS completion (sec 2.3.1). > > > > Per sec 2.3.2, when CRS SV (in Root Control register, sec 7.5.3.12) is > > enabled and a config read that includes both bytes of the Vendor ID > > receives a CRS completion, we must return 0x0001 for the Vendor ID and > > 0xff for any additional bytes. Note that a config read of only the > > two Vendor ID bytes is legal and should receive 0x0001 data. > > > > But if CRS SV is disabled, I think config reads that receive CRS > > completions should fail the normal way, i.e., fabricate ~0 data. > > In PCIe base 2.0 is: > > For other Configuration Requests, or when CRS Software Visibility is not > enabled, the Root Complex will generally re-issue the Configuration > Request until it completes with a status other than CRS as described in > Section 2.3.2. That text is from the "Configuration Request Retry Status" implementation note in PCIe r2.0, sec 2.3.1, "Request Handling Rules", and PCIe r5.0 contains the same text. PCIe r4.0, sec 2.3.2, says (r5.0 contains the same text but with a formatting error that changes the meaning): Root Complex handling of a Completion with Configuration Request Retry Status for a Configuration Request is implementation specific, except for the period following system reset (see Section 6.6). For Root Complexes that support CRS Software Visibility, the following rules apply: * If CRS Software Visibility is not enabled, the Root Complex must re-issue the Configuration Request as a new Request. * If CRS Software Visibility is enabled (see below): - For a Configuration Read Request that includes both bytes of the Vendor ID field of a device Function's Configuration Space Header, the Root Complex must complete the Request to the host by returning a read-data value of 0001h for the Vendor ID field and all ‘1’s for any additional bytes included in the request. This read-data value has been reserved specifically for this use by the PCI-SIG and does not correspond to any assigned Vendor ID. - For a Configuration Write Request or for any other Configuration Read Request, the Root Complex must re-issue the Configuration Request as a new Request. A Root Complex implementation may choose to limit the number of Configuration Request/CRS Completion Status loops before determining that something is wrong with the target of the Request and taking appropriate action, e.g., complete the Request to the host as a failed transaction. > So what should pci-aardvark driver in this case do? Return ~0 or re-send > this config read request (and how many times)? That's a good question. I don't know what other hardware implementations do, but I doubt they retry forever. Since the spec doesn't specify a number of retries, I think you can choose to do none and immediately return ~0. > Also this relates to previous discussion about PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20210507152542.sd54lk7bk56qapf3@pali/ > > > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > > + } else { > > > > + strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > > > + } > > > > break; > > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA: > > > > strcomp_status = "CA"; > > > > @@ -490,6 +529,9 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > break; > > > > } > > > > > > > > + if (!strcomp_status) > > > > + return 0; > > > > + > > > > if (reg & PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ) > > > > str_posted = "Non-posted"; > > > > else > > > > @@ -497,6 +539,8 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > > > > dev_err(dev, "%s PIO Response Status: %s, %#x @ %#x\n", > > > > str_posted, strcomp_status, reg, advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ADDR_LS)); > > > > + > > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > > } > > > > > > > > static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > @@ -703,8 +747,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > > size, val); > > > > > > > > if (advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie)) { > > > > - *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > - return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > + /* > > > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again insted of failing > > > > + */ > > > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > > > > Mmmm..here we are faking a CRS completion value to coerce the kernel > > > into believing a CRS completion was received (which is not necessarily > > > true) ? > > > > > > if advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie) == true, is that an HW error ? > > > > > > Lorenzo > > > > > > > + } else { > > > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > + } > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* Program the control register */ > > > > @@ -729,15 +782,27 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > > advk_writel(pcie, 1, PIO_START); > > > > > > > > ret = advk_pcie_wait_pio(pcie); > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > + /* > > > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again instead of failing > > > > + */ > > > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > > + } else { > > > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* Check PIO status and get the read result */ > > > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, val); > > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > > *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > } > > > > > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > > > - > > > > - /* Get the read result */ > > > > - *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > > > if (size == 1) > > > > *val = (*val >> (8 * (where & 3))) & 0xff; > > > > else if (size == 2) > > > > @@ -801,7 +866,9 @@ static int advk_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > > if (ret < 0) > > > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, NULL); > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > > > > return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > > } > > > > -- > > > > 2.20.1 > > > >
On Tuesday 20 July 2021 11:34:51 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Monday 19 July 2021 18:12:27 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:04:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) > > > > > { > > > > > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > > > > > u32 reg; > > > > > @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> > > > > > PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; > > > > > > > > > > - if (!status) > > > > > - return; > > > > > - > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: > > > > > + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, > > > > > + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit > > > > > + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. > > > > > + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only > > > > > + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with > > > > > + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. > > > > > + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) > > > > > + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful > > > > > + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. > > > > > + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means > > > > > + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. > > > > > + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. > > > > > + */ > > > > > switch (status) { > > > > > + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: > > > > > + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { > > > > > + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; > > > > > + break; > > > > > + } > > > > > + /* Get the read result */ > > > > > + if (val) > > > > > + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > > > > + /* No error */ > > > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > > > + break; > > > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: > > > > > - strcomp_status = "UR"; > > > > > + if (val) { > > > > > + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ > > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; > > > > > > I think the comment is incorrect. Unsupported Request *is* an error > > > status. But most platforms log it and fabricate ~0 data > > > (CFG_RD_UR_VAL) to return to the CPU, and I think that's what you're > > > doing here. So I think the code is fine, but the "not an error > > > status" comment is wrong. > > > > Ok, and what we should driver set as return value for pci_ops.read > > callback in this case? > > On most platforms, pci_ops.read() does not check for failure, so it > returns PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL in this case. Ok. Most platforms do not check for failure. But it is generally correct? Probably more platforms do not provide error flag and only return value. But aardvark hw provides this kind error information, so should pci-aardvark's pci_ops.read() on error returns PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL on some other return value? > > > Per the flowchart in PCIe r5.0, sec 6.2.5., fig 6-2, I think the > > > hardware should be setting the "Unsupported Request Detected" bit in > > > the Device Status register when this occurs. > > > > Yes there is register in kernel's emulated PCIe bridge which at bit 19 > > has: Unsupported Request Detected - The core sets this bit to 1 when an > > unsupported request is received. Write this bit to 1 to clear. > > I guess this bit 19 is the same as bit 3 in the 16-bit Device Status > register? Bit 19 if you look at Device Control + Device Status as a > single 32-bit register? Yes. Access to (emulated) registers is possible only via 4-byte aligned read / write operations. So this bit 19 is bit 3 in Device Status reg. > > > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + strcomp_status = "UR"; > > > > > + } > > > > > break; > > > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS: > > > > > - strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > > > > + if (val) { > > > > > + /* For reading, CRS is not an error status */ > > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > > > > > > Need Bjorn's input on this. I don't think this is what is expected from > > > > from a root complex according to the PCI specifications (depending on > > > > whether CSR software visibility is supported or not). > > > > > > > > Here we are fabricating a CRS completion value for all PCI config read > > > > transactions that are hitting a CRS completion status (and that's not > > > > the expected behaviour according to the PCI specifications and I don't > > > > think that's correct). > > > > > > Right. I think any config access (read or write) can be completed > > > with a CRS completion (sec 2.3.1). > > > > > > Per sec 2.3.2, when CRS SV (in Root Control register, sec 7.5.3.12) is > > > enabled and a config read that includes both bytes of the Vendor ID > > > receives a CRS completion, we must return 0x0001 for the Vendor ID and > > > 0xff for any additional bytes. Note that a config read of only the > > > two Vendor ID bytes is legal and should receive 0x0001 data. > > > > > > But if CRS SV is disabled, I think config reads that receive CRS > > > completions should fail the normal way, i.e., fabricate ~0 data. > > > > In PCIe base 2.0 is: > > > > For other Configuration Requests, or when CRS Software Visibility is not > > enabled, the Root Complex will generally re-issue the Configuration > > Request until it completes with a status other than CRS as described in > > Section 2.3.2. > > That text is from the "Configuration Request Retry Status" > implementation note in PCIe r2.0, sec 2.3.1, "Request Handling Rules", > and PCIe r5.0 contains the same text. > > PCIe r4.0, sec 2.3.2, says (r5.0 contains the same text but with a > formatting error that changes the meaning): > > Root Complex handling of a Completion with Configuration Request > Retry Status for a Configuration Request is implementation specific, > except for the period following system reset (see Section 6.6). For > Root Complexes that support CRS Software Visibility, the following > rules apply: > > * If CRS Software Visibility is not enabled, the Root Complex must > re-issue the Configuration Request as a new Request. > > * If CRS Software Visibility is enabled (see below): > > - For a Configuration Read Request that includes both bytes of > the Vendor ID field of a device Function's Configuration Space > Header, the Root Complex must complete the Request to the host > by returning a read-data value of 0001h for the Vendor ID > field and all ‘1’s for any additional bytes included in the > request. This read-data value has been reserved specifically > for this use by the PCI-SIG and does not correspond to any > assigned Vendor ID. > > - For a Configuration Write Request or for any other > Configuration Read Request, the Root Complex must re-issue the > Configuration Request as a new Request. > > A Root Complex implementation may choose to limit the number of > Configuration Request/CRS Completion Status loops before determining > that something is wrong with the target of the Request and taking > appropriate action, e.g., complete the Request to the host as a > failed transaction. > > > So what should pci-aardvark driver in this case do? Return ~0 or re-send > > this config read request (and how many times)? > > That's a good question. I don't know what other hardware > implementations do, but I doubt they retry forever. Since the spec > doesn't specify a number of retries, I think you can choose to do > none and immediately return ~0. Ok, so I will change implementation to return ~0 without any retry. This is simple and easy implementation. Anyway, it would be nice to know what other real-hardware implementations of PCIe controllers are doing. PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE bit is only part of kernel emulated PCIe Bridge and has no real register in aardvark hw. So for me it looks like that aardvark's pci_ops.read() should set read value to ~0 or 0xffff0001 based on what is stored in kernel emulated PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE bit. Right? > > Also this relates to previous discussion about PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20210507152542.sd54lk7bk56qapf3@pali/ > > > > > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + strcomp_status = "CRS"; > > > > > + } > > > > > break; > > > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA: > > > > > strcomp_status = "CA"; > > > > > @@ -490,6 +529,9 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > break; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + if (!strcomp_status) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > if (reg & PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ) > > > > > str_posted = "Non-posted"; > > > > > else > > > > > @@ -497,6 +539,8 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > > > > > > dev_err(dev, "%s PIO Response Status: %s, %#x @ %#x\n", > > > > > str_posted, strcomp_status, reg, advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ADDR_LS)); > > > > > + > > > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > @@ -703,8 +747,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > > > size, val); > > > > > > > > > > if (advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie)) { > > > > > - *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > > - return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > > > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again insted of failing > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > > > > > > Mmmm..here we are faking a CRS completion value to coerce the kernel > > > > into believing a CRS completion was received (which is not necessarily > > > > true) ? > > > > > > > > if advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie) == true, is that an HW error ? > > > > > > > > Lorenzo > > > > > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > + } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /* Program the control register */ > > > > > @@ -729,15 +782,27 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > > > advk_writel(pcie, 1, PIO_START); > > > > > > > > > > ret = advk_pcie_wait_pio(pcie); > > > > > + if (ret < 0) { > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status > > > > > + * so caller tries to issue the request again instead of failing > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { > > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; > > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > + } > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Check PIO status and get the read result */ > > > > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, val); > > > > > if (ret < 0) { > > > > > *val = 0xffffffff; > > > > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > > > > - > > > > > - /* Get the read result */ > > > > > - *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > > > > if (size == 1) > > > > > *val = (*val >> (8 * (where & 3))) & 0xff; > > > > > else if (size == 2) > > > > > @@ -801,7 +866,9 @@ static int advk_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, > > > > > if (ret < 0) > > > > > return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > > > > > > - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); > > > > > + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, NULL); > > > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > > > + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; > > > > > > > > > > return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; > > > > > } > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.20.1 > > > > >
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:11:55PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 20 July 2021 11:34:51 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > So what should pci-aardvark driver in this case do? Return ~0 or re-send > > > this config read request (and how many times)? > > > > That's a good question. I don't know what other hardware > > implementations do, but I doubt they retry forever. Since the spec > > doesn't specify a number of retries, I think you can choose to do > > none and immediately return ~0. > > Ok, so I will change implementation to return ~0 without any retry. This > is simple and easy implementation. Anyway, it would be nice to know what > other real-hardware implementations of PCIe controllers are doing. > > PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE bit is only part of kernel emulated PCIe Bridge and > has no real register in aardvark hw. > > So for me it looks like that aardvark's pci_ops.read() should set read > value to ~0 or 0xffff0001 based on what is stored in kernel emulated > PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE bit. Right? Yes, that would be my advice. Of course it's only if we're reading the Vendor ID *and* PCI_EXP_RTCTL_CRSSVE is set.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 08:11:55PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 20 July 2021 11:34:51 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > On Monday 19 July 2021 18:12:27 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:04:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:33:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > > +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) > > > > > > { > > > > > > struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; > > > > > > u32 reg; > > > > > > @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) > > > > > > status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> > > > > > > PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (!status) > > > > > > - return; > > > > > > - > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: > > > > > > + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, > > > > > > + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit > > > > > > + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. > > > > > > + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only > > > > > > + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with > > > > > > + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. > > > > > > + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) > > > > > > + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful > > > > > > + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. > > > > > > + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means > > > > > > + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. > > > > > > + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > switch (status) { > > > > > > + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: > > > > > > + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { > > > > > > + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; > > > > > > + break; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > + /* Get the read result */ > > > > > > + if (val) > > > > > > + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); > > > > > > + /* No error */ > > > > > > + strcomp_status = NULL; > > > > > > + break; > > > > > > case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: > > > > > > - strcomp_status = "UR"; > > > > > > + if (val) { > > > > > > + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ > > > > > > + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; > > > > > > > > I think the comment is incorrect. Unsupported Request *is* an error > > > > status. But most platforms log it and fabricate ~0 data > > > > (CFG_RD_UR_VAL) to return to the CPU, and I think that's what you're > > > > doing here. So I think the code is fine, but the "not an error > > > > status" comment is wrong. > > > > > > Ok, and what we should driver set as return value for pci_ops.read > > > callback in this case? > > > > On most platforms, pci_ops.read() does not check for failure, so it > > returns PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL in this case. > > Ok. Most platforms do not check for failure. But it is generally > correct? Probably more platforms do not provide error flag and only > return value. But aardvark hw provides this kind error information, so > should pci-aardvark's pci_ops.read() on error returns PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL > on some other return value? By all means, if you have the error information handy, return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND or whatever you think is appropriate. Of course, most callers of pci_read_config_word() et al don't check. I think you should set the returned data to ~0 in this case, too.
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c index 2f8380a1f84f..a37ba86f1b2d 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ #define PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS 2 #define PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA 4 #define PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ BIT(10) +#define PIO_ERR_STATUS BIT(11) #define PIO_ADDR_LS (PIO_BASE_ADDR + 0x8) #define PIO_ADDR_MS (PIO_BASE_ADDR + 0xc) #define PIO_WR_DATA (PIO_BASE_ADDR + 0x10) @@ -176,6 +177,9 @@ #define MSI_IRQ_NUM 32 +#define CFG_RD_UR_VAL 0xffffffff +#define CFG_RD_CRS_VAL 0xffff0001 + struct advk_pcie { struct platform_device *pdev; void __iomem *base; @@ -461,7 +465,7 @@ static void advk_pcie_setup_hw(struct advk_pcie *pcie) advk_writel(pcie, reg, PCIE_CORE_CMD_STATUS_REG); } -static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) +static int advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie, u32 *val) { struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev; u32 reg; @@ -472,15 +476,50 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) status = (reg & PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_MASK) >> PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_SHIFT; - if (!status) - return; - + /* + * According to HW spec, the PIO status check sequence as below: + * 1) even if COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) indicates successful, + * it still needs to check Error Status(bit11), only when this bit + * indicates no error happen, the operation is successful. + * 2) value Unsupported Request(1) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) only + * means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful with + * a read value of 0xFFFFFFFF. + * 3) value Completion Retry Status(CRS) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) + * only means a PIO write error, and for PIO read it is successful + * with a read value of 0xFFFF0001. + * 4) value Completer Abort (CA) of COMPLETION_STATUS(bit9:7) means + * error for both PIO read and PIO write operation. + * 5) other errors are indicated as 'unknown'. + */ switch (status) { + case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_OK: + if (reg & PIO_ERR_STATUS) { + strcomp_status = "COMP_ERR"; + break; + } + /* Get the read result */ + if (val) + *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); + /* No error */ + strcomp_status = NULL; + break; case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_UR: - strcomp_status = "UR"; + if (val) { + /* For reading, UR is not an error status */ + *val = CFG_RD_UR_VAL; + strcomp_status = NULL; + } else { + strcomp_status = "UR"; + } break; case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CRS: - strcomp_status = "CRS"; + if (val) { + /* For reading, CRS is not an error status */ + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; + strcomp_status = NULL; + } else { + strcomp_status = "CRS"; + } break; case PIO_COMPLETION_STATUS_CA: strcomp_status = "CA"; @@ -490,6 +529,9 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) break; } + if (!strcomp_status) + return 0; + if (reg & PIO_NON_POSTED_REQ) str_posted = "Non-posted"; else @@ -497,6 +539,8 @@ static void advk_pcie_check_pio_status(struct advk_pcie *pcie) dev_err(dev, "%s PIO Response Status: %s, %#x @ %#x\n", str_posted, strcomp_status, reg, advk_readl(pcie, PIO_ADDR_LS)); + + return -EFAULT; } static int advk_pcie_wait_pio(struct advk_pcie *pcie) @@ -703,8 +747,17 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, size, val); if (advk_pcie_pio_is_running(pcie)) { - *val = 0xffffffff; - return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; + /* + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status + * so caller tries to issue the request again insted of failing + */ + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; + } else { + *val = 0xffffffff; + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; + } } /* Program the control register */ @@ -729,15 +782,27 @@ static int advk_pcie_rd_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, advk_writel(pcie, 1, PIO_START); ret = advk_pcie_wait_pio(pcie); + if (ret < 0) { + /* + * For PCI_VENDOR_ID register, return Completion Retry Status + * so caller tries to issue the request again instead of failing + */ + if (where == PCI_VENDOR_ID) { + *val = CFG_RD_CRS_VAL; + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; + } else { + *val = 0xffffffff; + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; + } + } + + /* Check PIO status and get the read result */ + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, val); if (ret < 0) { *val = 0xffffffff; return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; } - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); - - /* Get the read result */ - *val = advk_readl(pcie, PIO_RD_DATA); if (size == 1) *val = (*val >> (8 * (where & 3))) & 0xff; else if (size == 2) @@ -801,7 +866,9 @@ static int advk_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn, if (ret < 0) return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; - advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie); + ret = advk_pcie_check_pio_status(pcie, NULL); + if (ret < 0) + return PCIBIOS_SET_FAILED; return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL; }