On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 02:24:34AM +0100, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 01:20:42AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote: > > > > No spec says you can put config space into the ranges at all, nobody > > > should be doing that today, obviously some cases were missed during > > > review.. > > > > ePAPR documents allows that when ss == 00. > > Which do you mean? The 'PCI Bus Binding' spec has fairly specific > language on how ranges should be used and interpreted, and it > precludes doing anything meaningful with config space (like requiring > b,d,f and r to be zeroed when doing compares against ranges, requiring > the ranges to represent the bridge windows, etc). > > There is certainly room to invent something (like ECAM mapping) but > nothing is specified in that document. On more carefull reading of the Power_ePAPR_APPROVED_v1.0.pdf document that I have I agree, there is no meaningful way of describing one's config ranges. > > The ePAPR document I have doesn't talk about PCI.. > > If you've found a document that defines how it works then that changes > things.. ;) > > > > The comment about ECAM was intended as a general guidance on what > > > config space in ranges could/should be used for. > > > > > > Right now config space shouldn't propagate out side any driver, so you > > > can probably just filter it in your generic code, and make it very hard > > > and obviously wrong for a driver to parse ranges for config space, so > > > we don't get more usages. > > > > OK, this goes slightly against your email from 26th March: > > > > "When we talked about this earlier on the DT bindings list the > > consensus seemed to be that configuration MMIO ranges should only be > > used if the underlying memory was exactly ECAM, and was not to be used > > for random configuration related register blocks. > > > > The rational being that generic code, upon seeing that ranges entry, > > could just go ahead and assume ECAM mapping." > > > > What I'm saying is that the only code that will see this ranges entry will > > be the parsing code as if we try to create a resource out of the range > > and add it to the host bridge structure (not driver) we will confuse the > > rest of the pci_host_bridge API. So we cannot do any ECAM accesses (yet?). > > Sorry if this seems unclear, what you quoted was from a specification > standpoint - someday defining config space ranges to be the ECAM > window makes the most sense. This is from the direction of precluding > drivers from using it for random purposes. > > From a Linux standpoint, there is simply no infrastructure for generic > config access outside the driver, so config space must remain > contained in the driver, and shouldn't leak into the host bridge or > other core structures. > > I think the shared code you are working on should simply ignore config > ss ranges entirely, they have no defined meaning.. Agree. Less things to code for is always better! Best regards, Liviu > > Regards, > Jason > -- ==================== | I would like to | | fix the world, | | but they're not | | giving me the | \ source code! / --------------- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- 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