Dear Gerlando Falauto,
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:11:33 +0100, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
> > Hum, right, but unless I'm wrong the of_busses[] array of struct of_bus
> > is fixed in drivers/of/address.c, and as it is, there is no way for a
> > specific bus driver to provide its own struct of_bus.
>
> That was exactly my understanding as well, and that's where I was
> expecting some trickery to happen.
>
> > So that would need to be extended, right?
>
> The other approach I was foreseeing was to implement a way of
> dynamically updating the DT when the PCI subsystem enumerates the
> devices and assigns memory areas (namely, I would expect the ranges
> property to reflect that). But this would imply a standard way of
> defining the ranges property (I would expect something like <bar#
> start_addr length>, with an arguable number of cells). And I could
> not find any such definition in the PCI bus binding document, so I'm
> probably completely off-track here. Aren't I?
>
> After all, we should expect a driver to behave (and expect) the same of
> the DT, regardless of whether enumeration was performed by firmware or
> by the OS itself. Or am I wrong on this too?
Well, in the context of the mvebu platforms (including Kirkwood), the
problem is not so much the ranges in the pcie-controller node, but the
ranges in the main soc { ... } node which encloses the description of
the MBus. It is those ranges that need to be updated when a new window
is created, or a window is removed. So the problem is not PCI related,
but MBus related in this case, no?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
