[PATCH v2 19/27] pci: PCIe driver for Marvell Armada 370/XP systems

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Jason Gunthorpe,

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:09:03 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> Link 0 translates like:
> 
> - Linux driver does inl(0x4)
> - ARM layer converts that into a read from PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE + 0x4
> - The CPU TLB converts that into a read from CPU physical
>   0xc0000000 + 0x4
> - The MBUS window remap register converts that into a read from IO
>   space 0x4
> - The address 0x4 is placed in the PCI-E IO transaction of link 0
> 
> Link 1 translates like:
> 
> - Linux driver does inl(0x1004)
> - ARM layer converts that into a read from PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE + 0x1004
> - The CPU TLB converts that into a read from CPU physical
>   0xc0000000 + 0x11004 (ie the mbus window for the link 1)
> - The MBUS window remap register converts that into a read from IO
>   space 0x1004
> - The address 0x1004 is placed in the PCI-E IO transaction of link 1

This last step is exactly what I thought would not work. If the PCIe
device has say 64 bytes of I/O space, then this 0x1004 PCI-E
transaction will be out of bounds, no?

Sorry, still learning how PCI works...

> > I understand that I have two choices here:
> > 
> >  * First one is to make the I/O regions of all PCIe links fit below the
> >    default IO_SPACE_LIMIT (0xffff) by doing the mapping trick you
> >    described above.
> > 
> >  * Second one is to have one 64 KB block for each PCIe link, which
> >    would require raising the IO_SPACE_LIMIT on this platform.
> 
> Yes, however, AFIAK this is the environment you should be running in:
> 
> #define IO_SPACE_LIMIT  ((resource_size_t)0xfffff)
> 
> Which is 5 f's not 4.

Aaah, you're right. My eyes got the number of f wrong. So I have 16
times 64 KB. So why would I bother doing the MMU trick if I can just
nicely remap 64 KB for each PCIe link ?

> > Can't this be solved using the window_alignement() hook we've been
> > discussing separately? Just like we teach the Linux PCI core about our
> > alignment requirements of 64K for the I/O regions, we could teach it
> > about our alignment requirement on memory regions as well. No?
> 
> Hopefully :) As long as it can adjust the start and length you should
> be fine.

Why would you need to adjust the length? If Linux allocates a 2 MB
resource on a 1 MB boundary, we simply increase the start address to
the next 2 MB boundary, and that's it. Why would the length need to
change?

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com