Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com; pr=C
Message-ID: <02567845-7662-51ca-6d73-1a82dc4c6450@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 10:05:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 2/5] PCI: Create device tree node for bridge
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
CC:     <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <robh@kernel.org>,
        <max.zhen@amd.com>, <sonal.santan@amd.com>,
        <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= <clement.leger@bootlin.com>
References: <1692120000-46900-1-git-send-email-lizhi.hou@amd.com>
 <1692120000-46900-3-git-send-email-lizhi.hou@amd.com>
 <20230911154856.000076c3@Huawei.com>
 <0cc232a2-1743-aeaa-cb87-ce320cc9fc39@amd.com>
 <20230912111035.00002e9b@Huawei.com>
From:   Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230912111035.00002e9b@Huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2023 17:05:44.2319
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b4994cf6-142b-46b5-924c-08dbb3b28068
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: SA2PEPF00001509.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH8PR12MB7280
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (pete.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Tue, 12 Sep 2023 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on pete.vger.email


On 9/12/23 03:10, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:58:04 -0700
> Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/23 07:48, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:19:57 -0700
>>> Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> The PCI endpoint device such as Xilinx Alveo PCI card maps the register
>>>> spaces from multiple hardware peripherals to its PCI BAR. Normally,
>>>> the PCI core discovers devices and BARs using the PCI enumeration process.
>>>> There is no infrastructure to discover the hardware peripherals that are
>>>> present in a PCI device, and which can be accessed through the PCI BARs.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, the device tree framework requires a device tree node for the
>>>> PCI device. Thus, it can generate the device tree nodes for hardware
>>>> peripherals underneath. Because PCI is self discoverable bus, there might
>>>> not be a device tree node created for PCI devices. Furthermore, if the PCI
>>>> device is hot pluggable, when it is plugged in, the device tree nodes for
>>>> its parent bridges are required. Add support to generate device tree node
>>>> for PCI bridges.
>>>>
>>>> Add an of_pci_make_dev_node() interface that can be used to create device
>>>> tree node for PCI devices.
>>>>
>>>> Add a PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES config option. When the option is turned on,
>>>> the kernel will generate device tree nodes for PCI bridges unconditionally.
>>>>
>>>> Initially, add the basic properties for the dynamically generated device
>>>> tree nodes which include #address-cells, #size-cells, device_type,
>>>> compatible, ranges, reg.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com>
>>> I tried to bring this up for a custom PCIe card emulated in QEMU on an ARM ACPI
>>> machine.
>>>
>>> There are some missing parts that were present in Clements series, but not this
>>> one, particularly creation of the root pci object.
>> Thanks for trying this. The entire effort was separated in different
>> phases. That is why this patchset does not include creating of_root.
>>> Anyhow, hit an intermittent crash...
>>>
>>>   
>>>> ---
>>>> +static int of_pci_prop_intr_map(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct of_changeset *ocs,
>>>> +				struct device_node *np)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct of_phandle_args out_irq[OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN];
>>>> +	u32 i, addr_sz[OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN], map_sz = 0;
>>>> +	__be32 laddr[OF_PCI_ADDRESS_CELLS] = { 0 };
>>>> +	u32 int_map_mask[] = { 0xffff00, 0, 0, 7 };
>>>> +	struct device_node *pnode;
>>>> +	struct pci_dev *child;
>>>> +	u32 *int_map, *mapp;
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +	u8 pin;
>>>> +
>>>> +	pnode = pci_device_to_OF_node(pdev->bus->self);
>>>> +	if (!pnode)
>>>> +		pnode = pci_bus_to_OF_node(pdev->bus);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!pnode) {
>>>> +		pci_err(pdev, "failed to get parent device node");
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	laddr[0] = cpu_to_be32((pdev->bus->number << 16) | (pdev->devfn << 8));
>>>> +	for (pin = 1; pin <= OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN;  pin++) {
>>>> +		i = pin - 1;
>>>> +		out_irq[i].np = pnode;
>>>> +		out_irq[i].args_count = 1;
>>>> +		out_irq[i].args[0] = pin;
>>>> +		ret = of_irq_parse_raw(laddr, &out_irq[i]);
>>>> +		if (ret) {
>>>> +			pci_err(pdev, "parse irq %d failed, ret %d", pin, ret);
>>>> +			continue;
>>> If all the interrupt parsing fails we continue ever time...
>> Did you use Clement's patch to create of_root? I am just wondering if
>> parsing irq could fail on a dt-based system.
> For qemu already have of_root as there is still a device tree, it's just
> used to pass some stuff to EDK2 I think. I was carrying the Frank's
> series adding a bare device tree, it's just not doing anything on these
> systems
>
> I used Clements patch to add the pci root (cleaned up a bit to
> match the style of your series more closely).
>
> However, my interest is in ACPI based systems, not DT based ones.

Thanks for your clarification. I am also more interested in ACPI based 
system. After discussing with Rob, creating PCI nodes on DT based system 
is the first step to achieve this.


Lizhi

>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> And yes, the failure case should be handled without crash. I think if
>> irq parsing failed,  the interrupt-map pair generation should be skipped.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lizhi
>>
>>>   
>>>> +		}
>>>> +		ret = of_property_read_u32(out_irq[i].np, "#address-cells",
>>>> +					   &addr_sz[i]);
>>>> +		if (ret)
>>>> +			addr_sz[i] = 0;
>>> This never happens.
>>>   
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(child, &pdev->subordinate->devices, bus_list) {
>>>> +		for (pin = 1; pin <= OF_PCI_MAX_INT_PIN; pin++) {
>>>> +			i = pci_swizzle_interrupt_pin(child, pin) - 1;
>>>> +			map_sz += 5 + addr_sz[i] + out_irq[i].args_count;
>>> and here we end up derefencing random memory which happens in my case to cause
>>> a massive allocation sometimes and that fails one of the assertions in the
>>> allocator.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest just setting addr_sz[xxx] = {}; above
>>> to ensure it's initialized. Then the if(ret) handling should not be needed
>>> as well as of_property_read_u32 should be side effect free I hope!
>>>   
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	int_map = kcalloc(map_sz, sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	mapp = int_map;