On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 03:05:53PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> From: Ben Widawsky <ben.widaw...@intel.com>
>
> A CXL device is a type of CXL component. Conceptually, a CXL device
> would be a leaf node in a CXL topology. From an emulation perspective,
> CXL devices are the most complex and so the actual implementation is
> reserved for discrete commits.
>
> This new device type is specifically catered towards the eventual
> implementation of a Type3 CXL.mem device, 8.2.8.5 in the CXL 2.0
> specification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widaw...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.came...@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
> ---
> include/hw/cxl/cxl.h | 1 +
> include/hw/cxl/cxl_device.h | 165 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 166 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/hw/cxl/cxl.h b/include/hw/cxl/cxl.h
> index 8c738c7a2b..b9d1ac3fad 100644
> --- a/include/hw/cxl/cxl.h
> +++ b/include/hw/cxl/cxl.h
> @@ -12,5 +12,6 @@
>
> #include "cxl_pci.h"
> #include "cxl_component.h"
> +#include "cxl_device.h"
>
> #endif
> diff --git a/include/hw/cxl/cxl_device.h b/include/hw/cxl/cxl_device.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..b2416e45bf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/hw/cxl/cxl_device.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
> +/*
> + * QEMU CXL Devices
> + *
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 Intel
> + *
> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2. See the
> + * COPYING file in the top-level directory.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef CXL_DEVICE_H
> +#define CXL_DEVICE_H
> +
> +#include "hw/register.h"
> +
> +/*
> + * The following is how a CXL device's MMIO space is laid out. The only
> + * requirement from the spec is that the capabilities array and the
> capability
> + * headers start at offset 0 and are contiguously packed. The headers
> themselves
> + * provide offsets to the register fields. For this emulation, registers will
> + * start at offset 0x80 (m == 0x80). No secondary mailbox is implemented
> which
> + * means that n = m + sizeof(mailbox registers) + sizeof(device registers).
What is n here, the start offset of the mailbox registers, this question is
based on the figure below?
> + *
> + * This is roughly described in 8.2.8 Figure 138 of the CXL 2.0 spec.
> + *
> + * +---------------------------------+
> + * | |
> + * | Memory Device Registers |
> + * | |
> + * n + PAYLOAD_SIZE_MAX -----------------------------------
> + * ^ | |
> + * | | |
> + * | | |
> + * | | |
> + * | | |
> + * | | Mailbox Payload |
> + * | | |
> + * | | |
> + * | | |
> + * | -----------------------------------
> + * | | Mailbox Registers |
> + * | | |
> + * n -----------------------------------
> + * ^ | |
> + * | | Device Registers |
> + * | | |
> + * m ---------------------------------->
> + * ^ | Memory Device Capability Header|
> + * | -----------------------------------
> + * | | Mailbox Capability Header |
> + * | -------------- --------------------
> + * | | Device Capability Header |
> + * | -----------------------------------
> + * | | |
> + * | | |
> + * | | Device Cap Array[0..n] |
> + * | | |
> + * | | |
> + * | |
> + * 0 +---------------------------------+
Would it make sense to add CXL cap header register to the diagram? n also
seems to be the size of the cap array, but it is also an offset so that could
be clarified.
> + *
> + */
> +
> +#define CXL_DEVICE_CAP_HDR1_OFFSET 0x10 /* Figure 138 */
> +#define CXL_DEVICE_CAP_REG_SIZE 0x10 /* 8.2.8.2 */
> +#define CXL_DEVICE_CAPS_MAX 4 /* 8.2.8.2.1 + 8.2.8.5 */
> +
> +#define CXL_DEVICE_REGISTERS_OFFSET 0x80 /* Read comment above */
Is this to plan for future capabilities? If we have CAPS MAX doesn't this
allow us to remove the slack space.
> +#define CXL_DEVICE_REGISTERS_LENGTH 0x8 /* 8.2.8.3.1 */
Should we add status to the name here, or would it get too long?
> +
> +#define CXL_MAILBOX_REGISTERS_OFFSET \
> + (CXL_DEVICE_REGISTERS_OFFSET + CXL_DEVICE_REGISTERS_LENGTH)
> +#define CXL_MAILBOX_REGISTERS_SIZE 0x20 /* 8.2.8.4, Figure 139 */
> +#define CXL_MAILBOX_PAYLOAD_SHIFT 11
I see 20 in the spec.
> +#define CXL_MAILBOX_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE (1 << CXL_MAILBOX_PAYLOAD_SHIFT)
> +#define CXL_MAILBOX_REGISTERS_LENGTH \
> + (CXL_MAILBOX_REGISTERS_SIZE + CXL_MAILBOX_MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE)
> +
> +typedef struct cxl_device_state {
> + MemoryRegion device_registers;
> +
> + /* mmio for device capabilities array - 8.2.8.2 */
> + MemoryRegion device;
> + MemoryRegion caps;
> +
> + /* mmio for the mailbox registers 8.2.8.4 */
> + MemoryRegion mailbox;
> +
> + /* memory region for persistent memory, HDM */
> + uint64_t pmem_size;
Can we switch this to mem_size and drop the persistent comment? It is my
understanding that HDM is independent of persistence.
> +} CXLDeviceState;
> +
> +/* Initialize the register block for a device */
> +void cxl_device_register_block_init(Object *obj, CXLDeviceState *dev);
> +
> +/* Set up default values for the register block */
> +void cxl_device_register_init_common(CXLDeviceState *dev);
> +
> +/*
> + * CXL 2.0 - 8.2.8.1 including errata F4
> + * Documented as a 128 bit register, but 64 bit accesses and the second
> + * 64 bits are currently reserved.
> + */
> +REG64(CXL_DEV_CAP_ARRAY, 0) /* Documented as 128 bit register but 64 byte
> accesses */
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_CAP_ARRAY, CAP_ID, 0, 16)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_CAP_ARRAY, CAP_VERSION, 16, 8)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_CAP_ARRAY, CAP_COUNT, 32, 16)
> +
> +/*
> + * Helper macro to initialize capability headers for CXL devices.
> + *
> + * In the 8.2.8.2, this is listed as a 128b register, but in 8.2.8, it says:
> + * > No registers defined in Section 8.2.8 are larger than 64-bits wide so
> that
> + * > is the maximum access size allowed for these registers. If this rule is
> not
> + * > followed, the behavior is undefined
> + *
> + * CXL 2.0 Errata F4 states futher that the layouts in the specification are
> + * shown as greater than 128 bits, but implementations are expected to
> + * use any size of access up to 64 bits.
> + *
> + * Here we've chosen to make it 4 dwords. The spec allows any pow2 multiple
> + * access to be used for a register up to 64 bits.
> + */
> +#define CXL_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_HEADER_REGISTER(n, offset) \
> + REG32(CXL_DEV_##n##_CAP_HDR0, offset) \
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_##n##_CAP_HDR0, CAP_ID, 0, 16) \
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_##n##_CAP_HDR0, CAP_VERSION, 16, 8) \
> + REG32(CXL_DEV_##n##_CAP_HDR1, offset + 4) \
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_##n##_CAP_HDR1, CAP_OFFSET, 0, 32) \
> + REG32(CXL_DEV_##n##_CAP_HDR2, offset + 8) \
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_##n##_CAP_HDR2, CAP_LENGTH, 0, 32)
> +
> +CXL_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_HEADER_REGISTER(DEVICE, CXL_DEVICE_CAP_HDR1_OFFSET)
> +CXL_DEVICE_CAPABILITY_HEADER_REGISTER(MAILBOX, CXL_DEVICE_CAP_HDR1_OFFSET + \
> + CXL_DEVICE_CAP_REG_SIZE)
> +
Fig139 for the following registers.
8.2.8.4.3
> +REG32(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CAP, 0)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CAP, PAYLOAD_SIZE, 0, 5)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CAP, INT_CAP, 5, 1)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CAP, BG_INT_CAP, 6, 1)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CAP, MSI_N, 7, 4)
> +
8.2.8.4.4
> +REG32(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CTRL, 4)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CTRL, DOORBELL, 0, 1)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CTRL, INT_EN, 1, 1)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CTRL, BG_INT_EN, 2, 1)
> +
8.2.8.4.5 + 8.2.9
> +REG64(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CMD, 8)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CMD, COMMAND, 0, 8)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CMD, COMMAND_SET, 8, 8)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_CMD, LENGTH, 16, 20)
> +
8.2.8.4.6
> +REG64(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_STS, 0x10)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_STS, BG_OP, 0, 1)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_STS, ERRNO, 32, 16)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_MAILBOX_STS, VENDOR_ERRNO, 48, 16)
> +
8.2.8.4.7
> +REG64(CXL_DEV_BG_CMD_STS, 0x18)
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_BG_CMD_STS, BG, 0, 16)
Should we call this OP since it is implied that we are BG given the register?
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_BG_CMD_STS, DONE, 16, 7)
NUM_DONE? since this is a percentage.
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_BG_CMD_STS, ERRNO, 32, 16)
Isn't this a RET_CODE since it is only valid if previous field is 100%
> + FIELD(CXL_DEV_BG_CMD_STS, VENDOR_ERRNO, 48, 16)
VENDOR_RET_CODE since the same rule for the previous field applies here.
> +
> +REG32(CXL_DEV_CMD_PAYLOAD, 0x20)
> +
> +#endif
> --
> 2.32.0
>
>
+cc Dave, Klaus, Tong
Other than the minor issues raised.
Looks good.
Reviewed by: Adam Manzanares <a.manzana...@samsung.com>
