On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:39:41AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > Thanks for your review, and I think it still not too late > for nitpicking as it isn't merged to next branch. :) > > We have amend the code a bit, so probably we fixed some of > the minor issues against V10. But some of them are really > personal taste, if you still insist on that, I will be ok > to modify them. > > I will push patch to fix them after your feedback. :) In the interest of making progress, I made most of the changes Guenter suggested (thanks very much, Guenter!) and made some more of my own on top of those. I can't conveniently build it, so I'm sure I've broken things. I pushed the current work-in-progress branch to pci/host-rockchip-wip. After we fix build errors and other thinkos, I'll rename it and put it in -next. I'll also post the broken-out patches for the changes I made on top of the previous v10 (2098142ae87d). I'll eventually squash them all into the original commit so we don't have the clutter in the logs. > On 2016/9/1 2:17, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:34:58AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > > [...] > > >>+ rockchip_pcie_enable_interrupts(port); > >>+ > > > >There is no matching disable_interrupts call in error handling after this. > >Is that ok ? > > > > From test, probably ok since the genpd will be off and all of them > wil be cleared. > > >Also, is it ok to enable interrupts this early (before the rest of the > >initialization is complete) ? > > > > The training starts, so we some client irq should be handled now, and we > already register isr. > > >>+ err = rockchip_pcie_init_irq_domain(port); > >>+ if (err < 0) > >>+ goto err_vpcie; > >>+ > >>+ err = of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(dev->of_node, 0, 0xff, > >>+ &res, &io_base); > >>+ if (err) > >>+ goto err_vpcie; > >>+ > >>+ err = devm_request_pci_bus_resources(dev, &res); > >>+ if (err) > >>+ goto err_vpcie; > >>+ > >>+ /* Get the I/O and memory ranges from DT */ > >>+ resource_list_for_each_entry(win, &res) { > >>+ switch (resource_type(win->res)) { > >>+ case IORESOURCE_IO: > >>+ io = win->res; > >>+ io->name = "I/O"; > >>+ io_size = resource_size(io); > >>+ io_bus_addr = io->start - win->offset; > >>+ err = pci_remap_iospace(io, io_base); > >>+ if (err) { > >>+ dev_warn(port->dev, "error %d: failed to map resource %pR\n", > >>+ err, io); > >>+ continue; > >>+ } > >>+ break; > >>+ case IORESOURCE_MEM: > >>+ mem = win->res; > >>+ mem->name = "MEM"; > >>+ mem_size = resource_size(mem); > >>+ mem_bus_addr = mem->start - win->offset; > >>+ break; > >>+ case IORESOURCE_BUS: > >>+ busn = win->res; > >>+ break; > >>+ default: > >>+ continue; > >>+ } > >>+ } > >>+ > >>+ if (mem_size) > > > >While strictly speaking not needed, I would recommend { } > >here to improve readability. > > > >>+ for (reg_no = 0; reg_no < (mem_size >> 20); reg_no++) { > > > >This doesn't support mem sizes smaller than 1 << 20 (and clips the size > >if it is not aligned to 1M). Is this intentional ? > > yes, we don't support. > > > > >>+ err = rockchip_pcie_prog_ob_atu(port, reg_no + 1, > >>+ AXI_WRAPPER_MEM_WRITE, > >>+ 20 - 1, > >>+ mem_bus_addr + > >>+ (reg_no << 20), > >>+ 0); > >>+ if (err) { > >>+ dev_err(dev, "program RC mem outbound ATU failed\n"); > >>+ goto err_vpcie; > >>+ } > >>+ } > > > > >>+ err = rockchip_pcie_prog_ob_atu(port, > >>+ reg_no + 1 + offset, > >>+ AXI_WRAPPER_IO_WRITE, > >>+ 20 - 1, > >>+ io_bus_addr + > >>+ (reg_no << 20), > >>+ 0); > >>+ if (err) { > >>+ dev_err(dev, "program RC io outbound ATU failed\n"); > >>+ goto err_vpcie; > >>+ } > >>+ } > > >>+ > >>+ pci_bus_add_devices(bus); > >>+ > >>+ dev_warn(dev, "only 32-bit config accesses supported; smaller writes may corrupt adjacent RW1C fields\n"); > >>+ > > > >A warning which is always displayed seems to be a bit useless. If this is a > >concern, maybe the driver should provide its own config space access functions > >and map smaller accesses into 32 bit accesses. But isn't that already done ? > > > > No, that is just for normal code path. When users comfigure it via some > user-space tool, it is sane to make them know this limitation. So we > was suggested to do this. > > >>+ return err; > >>+ > >>+err_vpcie: > >>+ if (!IS_ERR(port->vpcie3v3)) > >>+ regulator_disable(port->vpcie3v3); > >>+ if (!IS_ERR(port->vpcie1v8)) > >>+ regulator_disable(port->vpcie1v8); > >>+ if (!IS_ERR(port->vpcie0v9)) > >>+ regulator_disable(port->vpcie0v9); > >>+err_set_vpcie: > >>+ clk_disable_unprepare(port->clk_pcie_pm); > >>+err_pcie_pm: > >>+ clk_disable_unprepare(port->hclk_pcie); > >>+err_hclk_pcie: > >>+ clk_disable_unprepare(port->aclk_perf_pcie); > >>+err_aclk_perf_pcie: > >>+ clk_disable_unprepare(port->aclk_pcie); > >>+err_aclk_pcie: > >>+ return err; > >>+} > >>+ > >>+static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pcie_of_match[] = { > >>+ { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-pcie", }, > >>+ {} > >>+}; > >>+ > >>+static struct platform_driver rockchip_pcie_driver = { > >>+ .driver = { > >>+ .name = "rockchip-pcie", > >>+ .of_match_table = rockchip_pcie_of_match, > >>+ }, > >>+ .probe = rockchip_pcie_probe, > >>+ > >>+}; > >>+builtin_platform_driver(rockchip_pcie_driver); > >-- > >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in > >the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > -- > Best Regards > Shawn Lin > -- 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