[PATCH v9 4/5] PCI: dwc: ep: Support BAR subrange inbound mapping via Address Match Mode iATU

[Koichiro Den]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 09:51:19AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:16:21AM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> > >
> > > There might be other EPC drivers that don't disable all BARs in their .init(), so I would say that simply checking if the BAR has an address is not sufficient to guarantee that an EPF driver has called set_bar().
> > >
> >
> > Even if an EPC driver does not reset the BAR in their .init() and some
> > default translation is left exposed, wouldn't it be safe as long as
> > dw_pcie_ep_ib_atu_addr() succeeds in programming inbound mappings for the
> > entire BAR?
> 
> For e.g. on RK3588, the default HW configuration of the DWC controller has
> all 5 BARs as enabled, with a size of 1 GB.
> 
> There is no inbound address translation for these BARs by default.
> 
> So for it to be safe, the size of the set_bar() call would have to
> match the current size of the BAR, but how should the EPF driver know
> that when it has not called set_bar() yet?
> 
> dw_pcie_ep_read_bar_assigned() does not return the current size of the
> BAR. So you can't verify that the set_bar() call has the same size as
> the BARs "default size".

I wasn't considering either of the following cases as unsafe:
- succeeding by chance in programming via a one-shot set_bar() with submaps
- such a set_bar() failing (due to incorrect size recognition)

while as I mentioned in my previous reply, the first case effectively
becomes a loophole that contradicts the docs and git commit messages.

However, since v8, the second case clears any existing mappings, which
could indeed lead to an unsafe situtation.

> 
> 
> >
> > That said, such usage apparently contradicts the documented usage (1st
> > set_bar with no submap, then with submap) described in the docs and commit
> > messages in this series, and allowing it would make things unnecessarily
> > complicated. So I agree that adding such a safeguard is the right approach.
> >
> > >
> > > I think the safest option is my second suggestion because then we know that we will only call
> > > dw_pcie_ep_ib_atu_addr()
> > >
> > > When:
> > >
> > > 1) If ep->epf_bar[bar] is set:
> > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.19-rc6/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c#L363
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) All the other requirements to dynamically update a BAR is also met:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.19-rc6/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c#L368-L370
> > >
> >
> > That makes sense, and it ensures that the behavior always accords with the
> > docs and commit messages in this series.
> 
> I think it makes most sense to put the "use_addr_translation = true"
> 
> after the check:
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * We can only dynamically change a BAR if the new BAR size and
> 		 * BAR flags do not differ from the existing configuration.
> 		 */
> 		if (ep->epf_bar[bar]->barno != bar ||
> 		    ep->epf_bar[bar]->size != size ||
> 		    ep->epf_bar[bar]->flags != flags)
> 			return -EINVAL;
> 
> 
> So we know that dw_pcie_ep_ib_atu_addr() is only called when the size is the
> same.

I'll send v10 with the fix, possibly adding a BAR_SUBRANGE_TEST to pci
endpoint test as well.

Kind regards,
Koichiro

> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Niklas