On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:24:57 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:03:08PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Dear Jason Gunthorpe, > > > > (Adding a bunch of mvebu people in Cc) > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:36:49 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > Thomas: There is one buglet here that I haven't had time to do > > > anything about. Notice the DT is listing the PEX memory window in its > > > ranges. I've done this for two reasons > > > - The bootloader sets this address range up, so it is correct to > > > include in the DT > > > > The fact that the bootloader sets this MBus window is more-or-less > > irrelevant because when the mvebu-mbus driver is initialized, it > > completely clears *all* existing MBus windows: > > Yes, but it is not irrelevent. In my case this same DT is supporting > 3.10 and 3.12 kernels - 3.10 doesn't even have a MBUS driver or > dynamic PEX driver and it relies upon the ranges entry matching the > static bootloader configuration to work properly. > > So the 'ranges matching bootloader' does have a use case. > > > I indeed remember some objections, but I'm not sure what they were > > precisely. Maybe we didn't had a precise use case back at the time, to > > really make people objecting realize what the problem was? > > That is about where I am at too.. > > > On the other hand, I think the of_*() API is quite limited when it > > comes to updating the DT. If I remember correctly, you can update some > > nodes, but you can never reclaim the memory that was used for the > > previous value of the node. So any change to the in-memory DT > > representation is basically a memory leak for the entire lifetime of > > the system (of course, I might be wrong on this, I haven't dived into > > all the hardcore details of DT manipulation in the kernel). > > I'm not clear on that either, but it seems plausible.. > > > I'm not sure what would be the alternate mechanism to hook into the > > address translation. of_translate_one(), where all the translation > > through ranges takes place is really tied to the DT only, adding > > another mechanism to hook some custom address translation in there > > seems a bit weird, no? > > I agree, some kind of callback scheme would really be needed.. Sort of > like the xlate callback we have for IRQs? > > So the mbus would register an address xlate for its node that is > called instead of ranges parsing. For the example in my last message > the FPGA driver would register an xlate that made addresses relative > to its own BAR0 address. There are already bus-specific transations available. Take a look at struct of_bus in drivers/of/address.c g. > > However, it just works by pure luck: nothing guarantees you that the > > PCIe 0 memory window will start at 0xe0000000. Of course, since you > > Right, the general case is totally borked here - the dynamic changes > to the address map by MBUS and PCI are not being reflected to the > of_address machinery, be they from MBUS or from PCI BAR assignment. > > However, address assignment is very predicatble, so if you have a > constrained system it can work. Yes, the problem is that the DT probably can't have an accurate set of ranges for the devices under the PCIe bus since they are dynamically assigned. It would be really nice to wire this up properly so that the DT states the layout of stuff behind the bar, but leaves it to the OS to assign PCI regions. However, if firmware enumarates PCI and wants that to be passed through to the OS, then the DT really should be updated... even in that case though Linux should be able to pick up the PCI settings from the BAR registers and use those for dynamics translation. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
