Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754515AbaJJN6N (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:58:13 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:46641 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754240AbaJJN6L convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:58:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:58:04 +0100 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "jason@lakedaemon.net" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Marc Zyngier , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Liviu Dudau , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , Catalin Marinas , "bhelgaas@google.com" , "rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk" , "tglx@linutronix.de" Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] PCI: generic: Add support for ARM64 and MSI(x) Message-ID: <20141010135804.GA26646@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1411937610-22125-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> <2323270.n17xqW47JB@wuerfel> <20141009090420.GA16293@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1831157.eN0OxS7i7m@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1831157.eN0OxS7i7m@wuerfel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2014 13:58:08.0337 (UTC) FILETIME=[389F8410:01CFE492] X-MC-Unique: 114101014580820101 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [...] > > Last changes where introduced by commit 8c05cd08a, whose commit log adds > > to my confusion: > > > > "[...] I think what we want here is for pci_start to be 0 when mmap_api == > > PCI_MMAP_PROCFS.[...]" > > > > But that's not what the code does. > > My best guess is that this is a typo and that Darrick meant PCI_MMAP_SYSFS > in the changelog, which is the same thing that the code does. It's also > the sensible thing to do. > > This probably means that the procfs interface is now also broken on > sparc. > > > I will try to grab an integrator board to give it a go. > > Ok, good idea. Grabbed, tested it, my theory was correct, I can't map PCI resources to userspace. Actually, if I pass resource offset as a fixed-up address, mmap succeeds through proc, but it does not mmap the resource, it maps the resource + mem_offset that happens to be RAM :D for the PCI slot I am using. I am testing on an oldish (3.16) kernel since I am having trouble with mainline PCI and my network adapter on integrator, but I do not see why this is a problem, this bug has been there forever. By removing mem_offset from pci_mmap_page_range() everything works fine, both proc and sys mappings are ok. > > > > Or we can add mem_offset to the host bridge (after all architectures like > > > > PowerPC and Microblaze have a pci_mem_offset variable in their host > > > > controllers), but still, this removes pci_sys_data dependency but does > > > > not solve the pci_mmap_page_range() issue. > > > > > > The host bridge already stores the mem_offset in terms of the resource > > > list, so we could readily use that, except that it might break the > > > powerpc hack if that is still in use. > > > > Well, yes, I am not saying it can't be done by using the resources list, > > I am just trying to understand if that's really useful. > > The PCI core tries to be ready for PCI host bridges that have multiple > discontiguous memory spaces with different offsets, although I don't know > of anybody has that. However if we decide to implement a generic > pci_mmap_page_range that tries to take the offset into account, we should > use the resource list in the host bridge because it can tell us the correct > offsets. > > However, given what you found, the procfs interface being broken since > 2010 on both architectures (arm32 and sparc) that try to honor the offset, > we should probably go back to your previous suggestion of removing > the offset handling, which would make it possible to use the procfs > interface and the sysfs interface on all architectures. > > Would you be able to prepare a patch that does this and circulate that > with the sparc, powerpc and microblaze maintainers as well as Darrick > and Martin who were involved with the pci_mmap_fits change? Yes, but let's step back a second. I think that the proc interface should expect an offset as passed to the user in /proc/bus/pci/devices, and there the resource is exposed through pci_resource_to_user(). Hence, the pci_mmap_fits() should check the offset against the resource filtered through pci_resource_to_user(), job done, patch is trivial, and does what pci_resource_to_user() was meant for IMHO. Then we have to decide what to do with arm32 code: 1) we remove mem_offset from pci_mmap_page_range() (and rely on default pci_resource_to_user()) or 2) we provide pci_resource_to_user() for arm32 which does the CPU->bus conversion for us (and leave mem_offset as-is in pci_mmap_range()) Thoughts ? Thanks, Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/