On Wednesday 04 May 2016 12:36:17 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 03/05/16 02:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> +static const struct pcie_cfg_data generic_cfg = {
> >> + .offsets = pcie_offsets,
> >> + .type = GENERIC,
> >> +};
> >
> > The way you access the config space here seems very indirect. I'd
> > suggest instead writing two sets of pci_ops, with hardcoded registers
> > offsets in them, and a function pointer to access the RGR1_SW_INIT_1
> > register.
>
> How about introducing helper functions but keeping the same set of
> read/write pci_ops instead, would that seem more acceptable? I agree
> that the macros are not the friendliest thing.
I can't think of how that would look right now. My impression was that
the macros here are mainly used to implement pci_ops, so I suggested
having two copies of those. Of course the two copies could call the
same implementation and just pass in some constant that the compiler
can then optimize again in any possible way.
> >> +struct brcm_msi {
> >> + struct irq_domain *domain;
> >> + struct irq_chip irq_chip;
> >> + struct msi_controller chip;
> >> + struct mutex lock;
> >> + int irq;
> >> + /* intr_base is the base pointer for interrupt status/set/clr regs */
> >> + void __iomem *intr_base;
> >> + /* intr_legacy_mask indicates how many bits are MSI interrupts */
> >> + u32 intr_legacy_mask;
> >> + /* intr_legacy_offset indicates bit position of MSI_01 */
> >> + u32 intr_legacy_offset;
> >> + /* used indicates which MSI interrupts have been alloc'd */
> >> + unsigned long used;
> >> + /* working indicates that on boot we have brought up MSI */
> >> + bool working;
> >> +};
> >
> > I'd move the MSI controller stuff into a separate file, and add a way to
> > override it. It's likely that at some point the same PCIe implementation
> > will be used with a modern GICv3 or GICv2m, so you should be able to
> > look up the msi controller from a property.
>
> Good point, let's do that, though all controllers actually do support
> MSI, so I wonder.
The point is more that you might have more than one MSI implementation
in a future SoC, if you have both a GICv3 and this PCIe block, you
could use either one of them, but presumably using the GIC will be more
efficient because it actually allows doing IRQ affinity and having
low-latency interrupts when you don't need an expensive readl().
> >> +
> >> + /* set up 4GB PCIE->SCB memory window on BAR2 */
> >> + bpcie_writel(0x00000011, base + PCIE_MISC_RC_BAR2_CONFIG_LO);
> >> + bpcie_writel(0x00000000, base + PCIE_MISC_RC_BAR2_CONFIG_HI);
> >
> > Where does this window come from? It's not in the DT as far as I can see.
>
> This is an architectural maximum value which is baked into the PCIE Root
> Complex hardware, on all generations that this driver supports. We
> configure the largest address match rang size here, just to be safe,
> AFAICT there is no point in looking at the inbound or outbound window
> sizes to re-program that differently.
Ok, makes sense. In theory you could limit this to isolate PCI
bus masters from doing things you don't want them to (e.g. for
a hypervisor that assigns the entire PCI host bridge to a VM),
but I can't think of a use case for Linux here.
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcie->pwr_supplies);
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcie->resource);
> >> +
> >> + supplies = of_property_count_strings(dn, "supply-names");
> >> + if (supplies <= 0)
> >> + supplies = 0;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < supplies; i++) {
> >> + if (of_property_read_string_index(dn, "supply-names", i,
> >> + &name))
> >> + continue;
> >> + supply = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*supply), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!supply)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + strncpy(supply->name, name, sizeof(supply->name));
> >> + supply->name[sizeof(supply->name) - 1] = '\0';
> >> + supply->regulator = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, name);
> >> + if (IS_ERR(supply->regulator)) {
> >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unable to get %s supply, err=%d\n",
> >> + name, (int)PTR_ERR(supply->regulator));
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (regulator_enable(supply->regulator))
> >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unable to enable %s supply.\n",
> >> + name);
> >> + list_add_tail(&supply->node, &pcie->pwr_supplies);
> >> + }
> >
> > Don't parse the regulator properties yourself here, use the proper APIs.
>
> I will probably drop this for now, and add it later, there are only a
> handful of boards which requires this, and ultimately, I think we should
> be seaking for a more generic solutions, we can't be the only ones doing
> that.
So is this the supply for the slots attached to the PCI host rather than
the host bridge itself?
> >
> >> + /* 'num_memc' will be set only by the first controller, and all
> >> + * other controllers will use the value set by the first.
> >> + */
> >> + if (num_memc == 0)
> >> + for_each_compatible_node(mdn, NULL, "brcm,brcmstb-memc")
> >> + if (of_device_is_available(mdn))
> >> + num_memc++;
> >
> > Why is this?
>
> This is so we do not end-up programming the PCIe RC which is agnostic of
> the number of
You didn't complete this sentence, but I think I've gotten a better
idea of what is going on from the code now. It looks like this
is used to program a set of default DMA ranges into the host
bridge, so there are now three ways of finding out what it
should be:
a) count the memory controllers, assume that each one has 1GB of
address space
b) read the "brcm,log2-scb-sizes" property to find out the
actual sizes
c) interpret the dma-ranges property
The first two seem to things in a rather nonstandard way (the binding
mentions neither of them), while the third is not implemented yet.
I think we have to improve this.
Arnd
--
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
