On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:51:15 +0200
Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 08:35:22PM -0500, Terry Bowman wrote:
> > The CXL DVSECs are currently defined in cxl/core/cxlpci.h. These are not
> > accessible to other subsystems.
> >
> > Change DVSEC name formatting to follow the existing PCI format in
> > pci_regs.h. The current format uses CXL_DVSEC_XYZ. Change to be PCI_DVSEC_CXL_XYZ.
> [...]
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> > @@ -1225,9 +1225,61 @@
> > /* Deprecated old name, replaced with PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_RSP_3_TYPE */
> > #define PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_RSP_3_PROTOCOL PCI_DOE_DATA_OBJECT_DISC_RSP_3_TYPE
> >
> > -/* Compute Express Link (CXL r3.1, sec 8.1.5) */
> > -#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_PORT 3
> > -#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_PORT_CTL 0x0c
> > -#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_PORT_CTL_UNMASK_SBR 0x00000001
> > +/* Compute Express Link (CXL r3.2, sec 8.1)
> > + *
> > + * Note that CXL DVSEC id 3 and 7 to be ignored when the CXL link state
> > + * is "disconnected" (CXL r3.2, sec 9.12.3). Re-enumerate these
> > + * registers on downstream link-up events.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1_LENGTH_MASK GENMASK(31, 20)
> > +
> > +/* CXL 3.2 8.1.3: PCIe DVSEC for CXL Device */
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE 0
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CAP_OFFSET 0xA
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_CAPABLE BIT(2)
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_HDM_COUNT_MASK GENMASK(5, 4)
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CTRL_OFFSET 0xC
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_ENABLE BIT(2)
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_SIZE_HIGH(i) (0x18 + (i * 0x10))
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_SIZE_LOW(i) (0x1C + (i * 0x10))
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_INFO_VALID BIT(0)
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_ACTIVE BIT(1)
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_SIZE_LOW_MASK GENMASK(31, 28)
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_BASE_HIGH(i) (0x20 + (i * 0x10))
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_RANGE_BASE_LOW(i) (0x24 + (i * 0x10))
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_MEM_BASE_LOW_MASK GENMASK(31, 28)
>
> Is it legal to use BIT() in a uapi header?
>
> We've only allowed use of GENMASK() in uapi headers since 2023 with
> commit 3c7a8e190bc5 ("uapi: introduce uapi-friendly macros for GENMASK").
>
I was curious, so went looking at that series.
There was a second patch that has what we need here
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240131225010.2872733-3-pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx/
So upshot is we should use _BITUL() for user space headers defined in
uapi/linux/const.h, also should be using __GENMASK() not GENMASK()
in uapi/cxl/features.h
Anyhow fancy fixing up the existing cxl headers? I'll get to it maybe but
will be a while as have a massive review backlog.
Jonathan
> But there is no uapi header in the kernel tree defining BIT().
>
> I note that include/uapi/cxl/features.h has plenty of occurrences of BIT()
> since commit 9b8e73cdb141 ("cxl: Move cxl feature command structs to user
> header"), which went into v6.15.
>
> ndctl contains a bitmap.h header defining BIT(), I guess that's why this
> wasn't perceived as a problem so far:
> https://github.com/pmem/ndctl/raw/main/util/bitmap.h
>
> However existing user space applications including <linux/pci_regs.h>
> may not have a BIT() definition and I suspect your change above will
> break the build of those applications.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
>
