On 25/07/2017 17:09, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
2017-07-25 16:53 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin mst@redhat.com:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:50:49PM +0300, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
2017-07-25 16:43 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin mst@redhat.com:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 05:13:11PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 23/07/2017 15:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 01:15:42AM +0300, Aleksandr Bezzubikov wrote: > To enable hotplugging of a newly created pcie-pci-bridge, > we need to tell firmware (SeaBIOS in this case)
Hi Michael,
Presumably, EFI would need to support this too?
Sure, Eduardo added to CC, but he is in PTO now.
> to reserve > additional buses for pcie-root-port, that allows us to > hotplug pcie-pci-bridge into this root port. > The number of buses to reserve is provided to the device via a corresponding > property, and to the firmware via new PCI capability (next patch). > The property's default value is 1 as we want to hotplug at least 1 bridge.
If so you should just teach firmware to allocate one bus # unconditionally.
That would be a problem for the PCIe machines, since each PCIe devices is plugged in a different bus and we are already limited to 256 PCIe devices. Allocating an extra-bus always would really limit the PCIe devices we can use.
One of the declared advantages of PCIe is easy support for multiple roots. We really should look at that IMHO so we do not need to pile up hacks.
But why would that be so? What's wrong with a device directly in the root port?
To clarify, my point is we might be wasting bus numbers by reservation since someone might just want to put pcie devices there.
I think, changing default value to 0 can help us avoid this, as no bus reservation by default. If one's surely wants to hotplug pcie-pci-bridge into this root port in future, the property gives him such an opportunity. So, sure need pcie-pci-bridge hotplug -> creating a root port with bus_reserve > 0. Otherwise (and default) - just as now, no changes in bus topology.
I guess 0 should mean "do not reserve any buses". So I think we also need a flag to just avoid the capability altogether. Maybe -1? *That* should be the default.
-1 might be useful if any limit value 0 is legal, but is it? If not, we can set every field to 0 and this is a sign of avoiding capability since none legal values are provided.
As Gerd suggested, this value is not a "delta" but the number of buses to be reserved behind the bridge. If I got it right, 0 is not a valid value, since the bridge by definition has a list one bus behind.
Michael, would you be OK with that?
Thanks, Marcel
First, plugging a legacy PCI device into a PCIe Root Port looks strange at least, and it can;t be done on real HW anyway. (incompatible slots)
Second (and more important), if we want 2 or more PCI devices we would loose both IO ports space and bus numbers.
> > Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Bezzubikov zuban32s@gmail.com > --- > hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c | 1 + > include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c b/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c > index 4d588cb..b0e49e1 100644 > --- a/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c > +++ b/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c > @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ static void rp_exit(PCIDevice *d) > static Property rp_props[] = { > DEFINE_PROP_BIT(COMPAT_PROP_PCP, PCIDevice, cap_present, > QEMU_PCIE_SLTCAP_PCP_BITNR, true), > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT8("bus_reserve", PCIEPort, bus_reserve, 1), > DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST() > }; > diff --git a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h > index 1333266..1b2dd1f 100644 > --- a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h > +++ b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h > @@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ struct PCIEPort { > /* pci express switch port */ > uint8_t port; > + > + /* additional buses to reserve on firmware init */ > + uint8_t bus_reserve; > }; > void pcie_port_init_reg(PCIDevice *d);
So here is a property and it does not do anything. It makes it easier to work on series maybe, but review is harder since we do not see what it does at all. Please do not split up patches like this - you can maintain it split up in your branch if you like and merge before sending.
Agreed, Alexandr please merge patches 4-5-6 for your next submission.
Thanks, Marcel
> -- > 2.7.4
-- Alexander Bezzubikov
вт, 25 июля 2017 г. в 19:10, Marcel Apfelbaum marcel@redhat.com:
On 25/07/2017 17:09, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
2017-07-25 16:53 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin mst@redhat.com:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:50:49PM +0300, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
2017-07-25 16:43 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin mst@redhat.com:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 05:13:11PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 23/07/2017 15:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 01:15:42AM +0300, Aleksandr Bezzubikov
wrote:
>> To enable hotplugging of a newly created pcie-pci-bridge, >> we need to tell firmware (SeaBIOS in this case) >
Hi Michael,
> Presumably, EFI would need to support this too? >
Sure, Eduardo added to CC, but he is in PTO now.
>> to reserve >> additional buses for pcie-root-port, that allows us to >> hotplug pcie-pci-bridge into this root port. >> The number of buses to reserve is provided to the device via a
corresponding
>> property, and to the firmware via new PCI capability (next patch). >> The property's default value is 1 as we want to hotplug at least 1
bridge.
> > If so you should just teach firmware to allocate one bus # > unconditionally. >
That would be a problem for the PCIe machines, since each PCIe devices is plugged in a different bus and we are already limited to 256 PCIe devices. Allocating an extra-bus always would really limit the PCIe devices we can use.
One of the declared advantages of PCIe is easy support for multiple
roots.
We really should look at that IMHO so we do not need to pile up hacks.
> But why would that be so? What's wrong with a device > directly in the root port? >
To clarify, my point is we might be wasting bus numbers by reservation since someone might just want to put pcie devices there.
I think, changing default value to 0 can help us avoid this, as no bus reservation by default. If one's surely wants to hotplug pcie-pci-bridge into this root port in future, the property gives him such an opportunity. So, sure need pcie-pci-bridge hotplug -> creating a root port with bus_reserve > 0. Otherwise (and default) - just as now, no changes in bus topology.
I guess 0 should mean "do not reserve any buses". So I think we also need a flag to just avoid the capability altogether. Maybe -1? *That* should be the default.
-1 might be useful if any limit value 0 is legal, but is it? If not, we can set every field to 0 and this is a sign of avoiding capability since none legal values are provided.
As Gerd suggested, this value is not a "delta" but the number of buses to be reserved behind the bridge. If I got it right, 0 is not a valid value, since the bridge by definition has a list one bus behind.
Gerd's suggestion was to set min(cap_value, children_found). From such point of view 0 can be a valid value.
Michael, would you be OK with that?
Thanks, Marcel
First, plugging a legacy PCI device into a PCIe Root Port looks strange at least, and it can;t be done on real HW anyway. (incompatible slots)
Second (and more important), if we want 2 or more PCI devices we would loose both IO ports space and bus numbers.
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Bezzubikov zuban32s@gmail.com >> --- >> hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c | 1 + >> include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h | 3 +++ >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c
b/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c
>> index 4d588cb..b0e49e1 100644 >> --- a/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c >> +++ b/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c >> @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ static void rp_exit(PCIDevice *d) >> static Property rp_props[] = { >> DEFINE_PROP_BIT(COMPAT_PROP_PCP, PCIDevice, cap_present, >> QEMU_PCIE_SLTCAP_PCP_BITNR, true), >> + DEFINE_PROP_UINT8("bus_reserve", PCIEPort, bus_reserve, 1), >> DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST() >> }; >> diff --git a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h
b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h
>> index 1333266..1b2dd1f 100644 >> --- a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h >> +++ b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h >> @@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ struct PCIEPort { >> /* pci express switch port */ >> uint8_t port; >> + >> + /* additional buses to reserve on firmware init */ >> + uint8_t bus_reserve; >> }; >> void pcie_port_init_reg(PCIDevice *d); > > So here is a property and it does not do anything. > It makes it easier to work on series maybe, but review > is harder since we do not see what it does at all. > Please do not split up patches like this - you can maintain > it split up in your branch if you like and merge before sending. >
Agreed, Alexandr please merge patches 4-5-6 for your next submission.
Thanks, Marcel
>> -- >> 2.7.4
-- Alexander Bezzubikov
--
Alexander Bezzubikov
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 07:10:33PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 25/07/2017 17:09, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
2017-07-25 16:53 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin mst@redhat.com:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:50:49PM +0300, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
2017-07-25 16:43 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin mst@redhat.com:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 05:13:11PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 23/07/2017 15:22, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 01:15:42AM +0300, Aleksandr Bezzubikov wrote: > > To enable hotplugging of a newly created pcie-pci-bridge, > > we need to tell firmware (SeaBIOS in this case) >
Hi Michael,
> Presumably, EFI would need to support this too? >
Sure, Eduardo added to CC, but he is in PTO now.
> > to reserve > > additional buses for pcie-root-port, that allows us to > > hotplug pcie-pci-bridge into this root port. > > The number of buses to reserve is provided to the device via a corresponding > > property, and to the firmware via new PCI capability (next patch). > > The property's default value is 1 as we want to hotplug at least 1 bridge. > > If so you should just teach firmware to allocate one bus # > unconditionally. >
That would be a problem for the PCIe machines, since each PCIe devices is plugged in a different bus and we are already limited to 256 PCIe devices. Allocating an extra-bus always would really limit the PCIe devices we can use.
One of the declared advantages of PCIe is easy support for multiple roots. We really should look at that IMHO so we do not need to pile up hacks.
> But why would that be so? What's wrong with a device > directly in the root port? >
To clarify, my point is we might be wasting bus numbers by reservation since someone might just want to put pcie devices there.
I think, changing default value to 0 can help us avoid this, as no bus reservation by default. If one's surely wants to hotplug pcie-pci-bridge into this root port in future, the property gives him such an opportunity. So, sure need pcie-pci-bridge hotplug -> creating a root port with bus_reserve > 0. Otherwise (and default) - just as now, no changes in bus topology.
I guess 0 should mean "do not reserve any buses". So I think we also need a flag to just avoid the capability altogether. Maybe -1? *That* should be the default.
-1 might be useful if any limit value 0 is legal, but is it? If not, we can set every field to 0 and this is a sign of avoiding capability since none legal values are provided.
As Gerd suggested, this value is not a "delta" but the number of buses to be reserved behind the bridge. If I got it right, 0 is not a valid value, since the bridge by definition has a list one bus behind.
Michael, would you be OK with that?
Thanks, Marcel
IMHO we want an encoding that works for IO and memory too.
First, plugging a legacy PCI device into a PCIe Root Port looks strange at least, and it can;t be done on real HW anyway. (incompatible slots)
Second (and more important), if we want 2 or more PCI devices we would loose both IO ports space and bus numbers.
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Bezzubikov zuban32s@gmail.com > > --- > > hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c | 1 + > > include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h | 3 +++ > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c b/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c > > index 4d588cb..b0e49e1 100644 > > --- a/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c > > +++ b/hw/pci-bridge/pcie_root_port.c > > @@ -137,6 +137,7 @@ static void rp_exit(PCIDevice *d) > > static Property rp_props[] = { > > DEFINE_PROP_BIT(COMPAT_PROP_PCP, PCIDevice, cap_present, > > QEMU_PCIE_SLTCAP_PCP_BITNR, true), > > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT8("bus_reserve", PCIEPort, bus_reserve, 1), > > DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST() > > }; > > diff --git a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h > > index 1333266..1b2dd1f 100644 > > --- a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h > > +++ b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h > > @@ -34,6 +34,9 @@ struct PCIEPort { > > /* pci express switch port */ > > uint8_t port; > > + > > + /* additional buses to reserve on firmware init */ > > + uint8_t bus_reserve; > > }; > > void pcie_port_init_reg(PCIDevice *d); > > So here is a property and it does not do anything. > It makes it easier to work on series maybe, but review > is harder since we do not see what it does at all. > Please do not split up patches like this - you can maintain > it split up in your branch if you like and merge before sending. >
Agreed, Alexandr please merge patches 4-5-6 for your next submission.
Thanks, Marcel
> > -- > > 2.7.4
-- Alexander Bezzubikov
-
Alexander Bezzubikov -
Marcel Apfelbaum -
Michael S. Tsirkin