lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/15] cxl/acpi: Check RCH's CXL DVSEC capabilities
On 01.09.22 11:37:57, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 08:38:52 +0200
> Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote:
>
> > On 31.08.22 12:12:22, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:15:56 +0200
> > > > Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > @@ -322,6 +322,8 @@ struct pci_host_bridge *cxl_find_next_rch(struct pci_host_bridge *host)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct pci_bus *bus = host ? host->bus : NULL;
> > > > > struct acpi_device *adev;
> > > > > + struct pci_dev *pdev;
> > > > > + bool is_restricted_host;
> > > > >
> > > > > while ((bus = pci_find_next_bus(bus)) != NULL) {
> > > > > host = bus ? to_pci_host_bridge(bus->bridge) : NULL;
> > > > > @@ -343,6 +345,20 @@ struct pci_host_bridge *cxl_find_next_rch(struct pci_host_bridge *host)
> > > > > dev_dbg(&host->dev, "PCI ACPI host found: %s\n",
> > > > > acpi_dev_name(adev));
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* Check CXL DVSEC of dev 0 func 0 */
> > > >
> > > > So assumption here is that the hostbridge has a one or more RCiEPs.
> > > > The spec (r3.0 9.11.4) allows for the EP to appear behind a root port
> > > > - that case always felt odd to me, so I'm fine with not supporting it until
> > > > we see a user.
> > > >
> > > > > + pdev = pci_get_slot(bus, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0));
> > > > > + is_restricted_host = pdev
> > > > > + && (pci_pcie_type(pdev) == PCI_EXP_TYPE_RC_END)
> > > > > + && pci_find_dvsec_capability(pdev,
> > > > > + PCI_DVSEC_VENDOR_ID_CXL,
> > > > > + CXL_DVSEC_PCIE_DEVICE);
> > >
> > > Thinking a bit more on this. I'm not sure this is sufficient.
> > > Nothing in CXL 2.0 or later prevents true RCiEP devices (there are a
> > > few references in CXL 3.0 e.g. 9.12.1 has RCDs or CXL RCiEPs - so just
> > > detecting that there is one on the host bridge might not be sufficient
> > > to distinguish this from a non RCH / RCB.
> >
> > An RCD has its own host bridge created (software view, not the phys
> > topology). Host and device are paired in this case. Non-RCDs are
> > standard endpoints and not RCiEPs, they have their own host.
>
> I disagree. CXL spec does not exclude the possibility of real CXL
> RCiEPs. So a CXL 2.0+ device that talks CXL configuration for some
> reason but is part of the root complex itself (maybe a chiplet or
> something where there isn't necessarily a real CXL bus involved).
> Same reason we have RCiEPs in normal PCIe.
>
> Chasing references - there is only one I can find (CXL r3.0 9.12.1)
> "If a Host bridge is not associated with RCDs or CXL RCiEPs."
>
> Both listed because they are different things.
> (I think it's fine to say here that this has been queried in
> appropriate place in the past and is something that is allowed).
>
> So I still don't think the above check is sufficient'. If you
> happen to have just one CXL 2.0+ RCiEP on a host bridge with
> not root ports, then the check will identify it as a restriced
> host. Maybe I'm missing another check that wouldn't though....
>
> > There
> > cannot be both types connected to the same host.
> >
> > Again, see figure 9-12 and 9-13.
> Examples - don't show all the crazy things people are allowed to
> build - you would need an awful lot of diagrams to do that.

Right, there are references to CXL 2.0+ devices implemented as RCiEPs.

"9.12 CXL VH Enumeration" states that for the CXL Host Bridge
identification the CEDT should be used:

"""
CXL Early Discovery Table (CEDT) may be used to differentiate
between the three software concepts listed above.
"""

This check is added in patch #10 where the RCRB is extracted, so we
are good here.

-Robert

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-06 12:22    [W:0.138 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site