Re: Add support for ACPI Module Device ACPI0004?

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:25 AM, John Baldwin <jhb_at_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_at_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_at_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_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 02:29:30 AM Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> >> >> >> > From: John Baldwin [mailto:jhb_at_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.

Thanks,
sephe

-- 
Tomorrow Will Never Die