Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] hw/pci: add bus_reserve property to pcie-root-port

[Marcel Apfelbaum]

On 25/07/2017 17:09, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
> 2017-07-25 16:53 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden>:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 04:50:49PM +0300, Alexander Bezzubikov wrote:
> > > 2017-07-25 16:43 GMT+03:00 Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden>:
> > > > 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 <address@hidden>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >    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