Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:35:08 +0800 From: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org>, Yanmin Qiao <yaqia@microsoft.com> Subject: Re: Add support for ACPI Module Device ACPI0004? Message-ID: <CAMOc5cxyc9kUMMgrZjkNA%2BJ423mcmh5DnUvamtffwJ0E1mQVUQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAMOc5cyNhFLkh2Y76mOBhKsMuSJe7j3rovOP3FaTa6D0kfGgnA@mail.gmail.com> References: <HK2P15301MB0003969B87170C0593C92EB2BF180@HK2P15301MB0003.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1737882.TJdaAP1hO8@ralph.baldwin.cx> <CAMOc5cw5N5AzLcqDNrkD4kmACeNKcf0=FQfg8mZobR4zGdvx_Q@mail.gmail.com> <6993108.fO6lomHkak@ralph.baldwin.cx> <CAMOc5cyNhFLkh2Y76mOBhKsMuSJe7j3rovOP3FaTa6D0kfGgnA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:25 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 30, 2017 09:02:30 AM Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:01 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> > On Friday, April 28, 2017 05:38:32 PM Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:14 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> >> > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 09:18:48 AM Sepherosa Ziehau wrote:
>>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 4:36 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:29:30 AM Dexuan Cui wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > From: John Baldwin [mailto:jhb@freebsd.org]
>>> >> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:34
>>> >> >> >> > > Can we add the support of "ACPI0004" with the below one-line change?
>>> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> > > acpi_sysres_probe(device_t dev)
>>> >> >> >> > > {
>>> >> >> >> > > - static char *sysres_ids[] = { "PNP0C01", "PNP0C02", NULL };
>>> >> >> >> > > + static char *sysres_ids[] = { "PNP0C01", "PNP0C02", "ACPI0004", NULL };
>>> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> > Hmm, so the role of C01 and C02 is to reserve system resources, though we
>>> >> >> >> > in turn allow any child of acpi0 to suballocate those ranges (since historically
>>> >> >> >> > c01 and c02 tend to allocate I/O ranges that are then used by things like the
>>> >> >> >> > EC, PS/2 keyboard controller, etc.). From my reading of ACPI0004 in the ACPI
>>> >> >> >> > 6.1 spec it's not quite clear that ACPI0004 is like that? In particular, it
>>> >> >> >> > seems that 004 should only allow direct children to suballocate? This
>>> >> >> >> > change might work, but it will allow more devices to allocate the ranges in
>>> >> >> >> > _CRS than otherwise.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Do you have an acpidump from a guest system that contains an ACPI0004
>>> >> >> >> > node that you can share?
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > John Baldwin
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Hi John,
>>> >> >> >> Thanks for the help!
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Please see the attached file, which is got by
>>> >> >> >> "acpidump -dt | gzip -c9 > acpidump.dt.gz"
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> In the dump, we can see the "ACPI0004" node (VMOD) is the parent of
>>> >> >> >> "VMBus" (VMBS).
>>> >> >> >> It looks the _CRS of ACPI0004 is dynamically generated. Though we can't
>>> >> >> >> see the length of the MMIO range in the dumped asl code, it does have
>>> >> >> >> a 512MB MMIO range [0xFE0000000, 0xFFFFFFFFF].
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> It looks FreeBSD can't detect ACPI0004 automatically.
>>> >> >> >> With the above one-line change, I can first find the child device
>>> >> >> >> acpi_sysresource0 of acpi0, then call AcpiWalkResources() to get
>>> >> >> >> the _CRS of acpi_sysresource0, i.e. the 512MB MMIO range.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> If you think we shouldn't touch acpi_sysresource0 here, I guess
>>> >> >> >> we can add a new small driver for ACPI0004, just like we added VMBus
>>> >> >> >> driver as a child device of acpi0?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Hmmm, so looking at this, the "right" thing is probably to have a device
>>> >> >> > driver for the ACPI0004 device that parses its _CRS and then allows its
>>> >> >> > child devices to sub-allocate resources from the ranges in _CRS. However,
>>> >> >> > this would mean make VMBus be a child of the ACPI0004 device. Suppose
>>> >> >> > we called the ACPI0004 driver 'acpi_module' then the 'acpi_module0' device
>>> >> >> > would need to create a child device for all of its child devices. Right
>>> >> >> > now acpi0 also creates devices for them which is somewhat messy (acpi0
>>> >> >> > creates child devices anywhere in its namespace that have a valid _HID).
>>> >> >> > You can find those duplicates and remove them during acpi_module0's attach
>>> >> >> > routine before creating its own child device_t devices. (We associate
>>> >> >> > a device_t with each Handle when creating device_t's for ACPI handles
>>> >> >> > which is how you can find the old device that is a direct child of acpi0
>>> >> >> > so that it can be removed).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The remove/reassociate vmbus part seems kinda "messy" to me. I'd just
>>> >> >> hook up a new acpi0004 driver, and let vmbus parse the _CRS like what
>>> >> >> we did to the hyper-v's pcib0.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The acpi_pci driver used to do the remove/reassociate part. What acpi0
>>> >> > should probably be doing is only creating device_t nodes for immediate
>>> >> > children. This would require an ACPI-aware isa0 for LPC devices below
>>> >> > the ISA bus in the ACPI namespace. We haven't done that in part because
>>> >> > BIOS vendors are not always consistent in placing LPC devices under an
>>> >> > ISA bus. However, you otherwise have no good way to find your parent
>>> >> > ACPI0004 device. You could perhaps find your ACPI handle, ask for its
>>> >> > parent handle, then ask for the device_t of that handle to find the
>>> >> > ACPI0004 device, but then you'd need to have all your bus_alloc_resource
>>> >> > calls go to that device, not your "real" parent of acpi0, which means
>>> >> > you can't use any of the standard bus_alloc_resource() methods like
>>> >> > bus_alloc_resource_any() but would have to manually use BUS_ALLOC_RESOURCE
>>> >> > with the ACPI0004 device as the explicit first argument. It is primarily
>>> >> > the ability to let ACPI0004's driver transparently intercept all the
>>> >> > resource allocation so it can manage that is the reason for "VMBus"
>>> >> > to be a child of ACPI0004 rather than its sibling.
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, there could be more then one ACPI0004 typed devices, which could
>>> >> not form a device tree for vmbus.
>>> >
>>> > Are you saing a vmbus would need resources from multiple ACPI0004 devices?
>>>
>>> ACPI0004 (and several other PNP ids, see dexuan's submission) is
>>> something just like the acpi_sysresource. Not directly related to the
>>> vmbus at all.
>>
>> In the acpidump, the "vmbus" device was a direct child of ACPI0004. This is
>> quite different from acpi_sysresource0 which can be in random places in the
>> namespace (sometimes it is off of isab0, sometimes it is a child of isab0 or
>> of _SB_), and thus devices that suballocate ranges it reserves (like ipmi0
>> or acpi_ec0) are sometimes siblings, etc. That doesn't seem to be true for
>> ACPI004 as it is explicitly described as a container object.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. We are reorganizing the tree. The
> original ACPI device (VMBUS) is left as a resource device, instead of
> moving it around.
We have reorganized the vmbus tree:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10565
Thanks,
sephe
--
Tomorrow Will Never Die
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMOc5cxyc9kUMMgrZjkNA%2BJ423mcmh5DnUvamtffwJ0E1mQVUQ>