On 05/07/2017 23:34, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:39:19PM +0200, Mason wrote: > >> On 05/07/2017 20:03, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 12:55:37AM +0200, Mason wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/07/2017 22:24, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>> >>>>> I made the trivial changes I mentioned, added a dependency on >>>>> CONFIG_BROKEN (for the config/MMIO muxing issue), and put these on >>>>> pci/host-tango. I can't build or test this, so I probably broke >>>>> something in the process. I think the combination of the boot-time >>>>> warning, the taint, and CONFIG_BROKEN is a reasonable amount of >>>>> warning that a user should expect issues. >>>>> >>>>> Can you take a look and see if it works for you? >>>>> >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/log/?h=pci/host-tango >>>> >>>> Thanks. I'll take it for a spin ASAP. >>>> >>>> TAINT_CRAP... Smirk. I didn't see that one in the docs: >>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/tainted-kernels.html >>>> >>>> Oh wait... TAINT_CRAP is "C" => a staging driver has been loaded >>> >>> I wish it had a less pejorative, more descriptive name. But it seems like >>> the closest to this situation. >> >> Maybe it is not too late to submit a patch to Linus >> renaming TAINT_CRAP? >> >> Here are a few candidates, off the top of my head: >> >> TAINT_STAGING >> TAINT_STAGING_DRIVER >> TAINT_BROKEN_HW >> TAINT_BROKEN_HARDWARE >> TAINT_USE_AT_YOUR_OWN_RISK > > I personally wouldn't object, but it's not a PCI thing so that can all > be separate from this driver. Yes, of course. I was just asking for your (and anyone's) opinion, as a Linux dev. >>>> The one issue I anticipate with "depends on BROKEN" is >>>> when I add support for revision 2, which isn't broken. >>> >>> How about this: >>> >>> - Rename PCIE_TANGO to PCIE_TANGO_REV1 >>> - PCIE_TANGO_REV1 depends on BROKEN >>> - Add rev2 support later, enabled by PCIE_TANGO >>> - PCIE_TANGO_REV1 depends on PCIE_TANGO && BROKEN >>> >>> I updated pci/host-tango along these lines (without rev2 support, >>> obviously). >> >> And support for REV1 wouldn't be compiled in, unless >> BROKEN is selected? Yes, I think that could fly. > > Right. > >> Don't you think the naming should follow the DT >> convention of using the first SoC embedding the >> IP (for the compatible string) ? >> >> PCIE_TANGO_REV1 vs PCIE_TANGO_SMP8759 > > Sounds reasonable. So v2 will be something other than SMP8759? > I renamed it to CONFIG_PCIE_TANGO_SMP8759. Right, HW bugs are fixed in newer chips. Old chips rarely get bug fixes, apparently. > If you confirm that > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/commit/?h=pci/host-tango&id=d752a8b29345 > works for you, I'll include it in my v4.13 pull request. There were a few nits I wanted to address: - Since we added suppress_bind_attrs = true, probe() can only be called at init, so I wanted to mark __init all the probe functions, to save space. - I left the definition of MSI_MAX in the wrong patch - You put a pointer to the pdev in the struct tango_pcie. I think this is redundant, since the pdev already has a pointer to the struct, as drvdata. So I wanted to change tango_msi_probe() to take a pdev as argument (to make it more like an actual probe function) and derive pcie from pdev, instead of the other way around. Can I send you a patch series with these changes on Friday? Regards. -- 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
