[Intel-gfx] ResettRe: [Xen-devel] [v5][PATCH 0/5] xen: add Intel IGD passthrough support
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
konrad.wilk at oracle.com
Wed Jul 2 18:23:37 CEST 2014
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 04:50:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/07/2014 16:00, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha scritto:
> >With this long thread I lost a bit context about the challenges
> >that exists. But let me try summarizing it here - which will hopefully
> >get some consensus.
> >
> >1). Fix IGD hardware to not use Southbridge magic addresses.
> > We can moan and moan but I doubt it is going to change.
>
> There are two problems:
>
> - Northbridge (i.e. MCH i.e. PCI host bridge) configuration space addresses
Right. So in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c:
1135 #define MCHBAR_I915 0x44
1136 #define MCHBAR_I965 0x48
1147 int reg = INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 4 ? MCHBAR_I965 : MCHBAR_I915;
1152 if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 4)
1153 pci_read_config_dword(dev_priv->bridge_dev, reg + 4, &temp_hi);
1154 pci_read_config_dword(dev_priv->bridge_dev, reg, &temp_lo);
1155 mchbar_addr = ((u64)temp_hi << 32) | temp_lo;
and
1139 #define DEVEN_REG 0x54
1193 int mchbar_reg = INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 4 ? MCHBAR_I965 : MCHBAR_I915;
1202 if (IS_I915G(dev) || IS_I915GM(dev)) {
1203 pci_read_config_dword(dev_priv->bridge_dev, DEVEN_REG, &temp);
1204 enabled = !!(temp & DEVEN_MCHBAR_EN);
1205 } else {
1206 pci_read_config_dword(dev_priv->bridge_dev, mchbar_reg, &temp);
1207 enabled = temp & 1;
1208 }
>
> - Southbridge (i.e. PCH i.e. ISA bridge) vendor/device ID; some versions of
> the driver identify it by class, some versions identify it by slot (1f.0).
Right, So in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c the giant intel_detect_pch
which sets the pch_type based on :
432 if (pch->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL) {
433 unsigned short id = pch->device & INTEL_PCH_DEVICE_ID_MASK;
434 dev_priv->pch_id = id;
435
436 if (id == INTEL_PCH_IBX_DEVICE_ID_TYPE) {
It checks for 0x3b00, 0x1c00, 0x1e00, 0x8c00 and 0x9c00.
The INTEL_PCH_DEVICE_ID_MASK is 0xff00
>
> To solve the first, make a new machine type, PIIX4-based, and pass through
> the registers you need. The patch must document _exactly_ why the registers
> are safe to pass. If they are not reserved on PIIX4, the patch must
> document what the same offsets mean on PIIX4, and why it's sensible to
> assume that firmware for virtual machine will not read/write them. Bonus
> point for also documenting the same for Q35.
OK. They look to be related to setting up an MBAR , but I don't understand
why it is needed. Hopefully some of the i915 folks CC-ed here can answer.
>
> Regarding the second, fixing IGD hardware to not rely on chipset magic is a
> no-go, I agree. I disagree that it's a no-go to define a "backdoor" that
> lets a hypervisor pass the right information to the driver without hacking
> the chipset device model.
>
> The hardware folks would have to give us a place for a pair of registers
> (something like data/address), and a bit somewhere else that would be always
> 0 on hardware and always 1 if the hypervisor is implementing the pair of
> registers. This is similar to CPUID, which has the HYPERVISOR bit +
> hypervisor-defined leaves at 0x40000000.
>
> The data/address pair could be in a BAR, in configuration space, in the low
> VGA ports at 0x3c0-0x3df, wherever. The hypervisor bit can be in the same
> place or somewhere else---again, whatever is convenient for the hardware
> folks. We just need *one bit* that is known-zero on all hardware, and 8
> bytes in a reserved area. I don't think it's too hard to find this space,
> and I really, really would like Intel to follow up on a paravirtualized
> backdoor.
>
> That said, we have the problem of existing guests, so I agree something else
> is needed.
>
> > a) Two bridges - one 'passthrough' and the legacy ISA bridge
> > that QEMU emulates. Both Linux and Windows are OK with
> > two bridges (even thought it is pretty weird).
>
> This is pretty much the only solution for existing Linux guests that look up
> the southbridge by class.
Right.
>
> The proposed solution here is to define a new "pci stub" device in QEMU that
> lets you define a do-nothing device with your desired vendor ID, device ID,
> class and optionally subsystem IDs.
<nods>
>
> The new machine type (the one that instantiates the special
> IGD-passthrough-enabled northbridge) can then instantiate this stub device
> at 1f.0 with the desired vendor ID, device ID and class ID.
Which is kind of neat because you can use a different type of device ID with
(say make it look like Ibex Peak) and pair it up with an IGD that is found
only on LynxPoint. Oh fun!
>
> If we cannot get the paravirtualized backdoor, it would also make sense to:
>
> - have drivers standardize on a single way to probe the southbridge
>
> - make this be neither by class (because the firmware wants to distinguish
> the actual ISA bridge from the stub, and it can do so by looking up the
> class), nor by slot (because this conflicts with the Q35 chipset model that
> has the southbridge at 1f.0).
>
> mst's proposal was to probe by subsystem id. I'm not sure I understood the
> details exactly, but I trust him. :) However, in case it wasn't clear I
> think a paravirtualized backdoor would still be better.
OK, like this:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index 651e65e..03f2829 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -433,6 +433,8 @@ void intel_detect_pch(struct drm_device *dev)
unsigned short id = pch->device & INTEL_PCH_DEVICE_ID_MASK;
dev_priv->pch_id = id;
+ if (pch->subsystem_vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_XEN)
+ id = pch->device & INTEL_PCH_DEVICE_ID_MASK;
if (id == INTEL_PCH_IBX_DEVICE_ID_TYPE) {
dev_priv->pch_type = PCH_IBX;
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Found Ibex Peak PCH\n");
>
> > b) One bridge - the one that QEMU emulates - and lets emulate
> > more of the registers (by emulate - I mean for some get the
> > data from the real hardware).
> >
> > b1). We can't use the legacy because the registers are
> > above 256 (is that correct? Did I miss something?)
>
> As I understand it, mst brought up Q35 because the northbridge configuration
> space layout might be more similar to what the driver expects than for
> PIIX4. But I don't think anyone really said whether this is true or false.
>
> I think Q35 is absolutely not a requirement for IGD passthrough, especially
> until this statement is either proved or disproved.
OK, so lets drop that.
>
> >4). Code does a bit of sysfs that could use some refacturing with
> > the KVM code.
> > Problem: More time needed to do the code restructing.
>
> FWIW, I don't really care about code sharing with KVM. That's a separate
> problem and it's not necessary to bring it up and make waters even more
> muddy.
>
OK, lets drop that for now.
> Paolo
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list