[PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06

[Gabriele Paoloni]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd at arndb.de]
> Sent: 18 November 2016 13:43
> To: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; mark.rutland at arm.com; benh at kernel.crashing.org;
> catalin.marinas at arm.com; liviu.dudau at arm.com; Linuxarm;
> lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com; xuwei (O); Jason Gunthorpe; linux-
> serial at vger.kernel.org; linux-pci at vger.kernel.org;
> devicetree at vger.kernel.org; minyard at acm.org; will.deacon at arm.com; John
> Garry; zourongrong at gmail.com; robh+dt at kernel.org; bhelgaas at go og
> le.com; kantyzc at 163.com; zhichang.yuan02 at gmail.com; Thomas Petazzoni;
> linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Yuanzhichang; olof at lixom.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on
> Hip06
> 
> On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:53:08 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd at arndb.de]
> > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:07:28 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni
> wrote:
> > > > > I think there is no need to change a) here, we have
> PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
> > > > > today and even if we don't need it, there is no obvious
> downside.
> > > > > I would also argue that we can ignore b) for the discussion of
> > > > > the HiSilicon LPC driver, we just need to assign some range
> > > > > of logical addresses to each domain.
> > > > >
> > > > > That means solving c) is the important problem here, and it
> > > > > shouldn't be so hard.  We can do this either with a single
> > > > > special domain as in the v5 patch series, or by generalizing it
> > > > > so that any I/O space mapping gets looked up through the device
> > > > > pointer of the bus master.
> > > >
> > > > I am not very on the "generalized" multi-domain solution...
> > > > Currently the IO accessors prototypes have an unsigned long addr
> > > > as input parameter. If we live in a multi-domain IO system
> > > > how can we distinguish inside the accessor which domain addr
> > > > belongs to?
> > >
> > > The easiest change compared to the v5 code would be to walk
> > > a linked list of 'struct extio_ops' structures rather than
> > > assuming there is only ever one of them. I think one of the
> > > earlier versions actually did this.
> >
> > Right but if my understanding is correct if we live in a multi-
> > domain I/O space world when you have an input addr in the I/O
> > accessors this addr can be duplicated (for example for the standard
> > PCI IO domain and for our special LPC domain).
> > So effectively even if you walk a linked list there is a problem
> > of disambiguation...am I right?
> 
> No, unlike the PCI memory space, the PIO addresses are not
> usually distinct, i.e. every PCI bus has its own 64K I/O
> addresses starting at zero. We linearize them into the
> Linux I/O space using the per-domain io_offset value.

I am going to summarize my understanding here below:

It seems to me that what is linearized is the virtual address
space associated to the IO address space. This address space
goes from PCI_IOBASE to (PCI_IOBASE + IO_SPACE_LIMIT).

The I/O accessors perform rd/wr operation on this address
space using a port IO token.

Each token map into a cpu physical address range
Each cpu physical address range maps to a bus address range
if the bus controller specifies a range property.

Devices under a bus controller specify the bus addresses that
they operate on in their reg property.

So each device can use the same bus addresses under two
separate bus controllers as long as the bus controller
use the range properties to map the same bus range to different
cpu address range. 

> 
> For the ISA/LPC spaces there are only 4k of addresses, they
> the bus addresses always overlap, but we can trivially
> figure out the bus address from Linux I/O port number
> by subtracting the start of the range.

Are you saying that our LPC controller should specify a
range property to map bus addresses into a cpu address range? 

> 
> > > Another option the IA64 approach mentioned in another subthread
> > > today, looking up the operations based on an index from the
> > > upper bits of the port number. If we do this, we probably
> > > want to do that for all PIO access and replace the entire
> > > virtual address remapping logic with that. I think Bjorn
> > > in the past argued in favor of such an approach, while I
> > > advocated the current scheme for simplicity based on how
> > > every I/O space these days is just memory mapped (which now
> > > turned out to be false, both on powerpc and arm64).
> >
> > This seems really complex...I am a bit worried that possibly
> > we end up in having the maintainers saying that it is not worth
> > to re-invent the world just for this special LPC device...
> 
> It would clearly be a rather invasive change, but the
> end-result isn't necessarily more complex than what we
> have today, as we'd kill off the crazy pci_pio_to_address()
> and pci_address_to_pio() hacks in address translation.

I have to look better into this...can you provide me a reference
to the Bjorn argument in favor of this approach?

> 
> > To be honest with you I would keep things simple for this
> > LPC and introduce more complex reworks later if more devices
> > need to be introduced.
> >
> > What if we stick on a single domain now where we introduce a
> > reserved threshold for the IO space (say INDIRECT_MAX_IO).
> 
> I said having a single domain is fine, but I still don't
> like the idea of reserving low port numbers for this hack,
> it would mean that the numbers change for everyone else.

I don't get this much...I/O tokens that are passed to the I/O
accessors are not fixed anyway and they vary depending on the order
of adding ranges to io_range_list...so I don't see a big issue
with this...

> 
> > We define INDIRECT_MAX_IO as 0 in "include/linux/extio.h" and
> > we define INDIRECT_MAX_IO as 0x1000 in "arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h"
> >
> > So effectively this threshold can change according to the
> > architecture and so far we only define it for ARM64 as we need
> > it for ARM64...
> 
> I liked the idea of having it done in asm-generic/io.h (in an ifdef)
> and lib/*.c under an as someone suggested earlier. There is nothing
> ARM64 specific in the implementation.

Correct and ideally if the INDIRECT_MAX_IO approach was taken then we
should define INDIRECT_MAX_IO for any architecture that can support the
special LPC devices. We would define it for ARM64 just because LPC
is used in our case under ARM64; the idea was to leave other architecture
to define their own ones as needed...but probably this is wrong and
we should have defined this for all the architectures.

Many thanks

Gab

> 
> 	Arnd