On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:30:52AM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:56:32AM +0100, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 04:49:59PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> >On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:58:04PM +0100, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> >> >Enhance the default implementation of pcibios_add_device() to
>> >> >parse and map the IRQ of the device if a DT binding is available.
>> >> >
>> >> >Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx>
>> >> >---
>> >> > drivers/pci/pci.c | 3 +++
>> >> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> >> >
>> >> >diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> >> >index 1c8592b..29d1775 100644
>> >> >--- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> >> >+++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>> >> >@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>> >> > #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/string.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/log2.h>
>> >> >+#include <linux/of_pci.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/pci-aspm.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/pm_wakeup.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> >> >@@ -1453,6 +1454,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(pcim_pin_device);
>> >> > */
>> >> > int __weak pcibios_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> >> > {
>> >> >+ dev->irq = of_irq_parse_and_map_pci(dev, 0, 0);
>> >> >+
>> >> > return 0;
>> >> > }
>> >>
>> >> Liviu,
>> >>
>> >> For this, my suggestion is to add arch dependent function to setup the irq
>> >> line for pci devices. I can't find an obvious reason this won't work on other
>> >> archs, but maybe this will hurt some of them?
>> >
>> >Hi Wei,
>> >
>> >I'm not sure I understand your point. Architectures that support OF will obviously
>> >benefit from this common approach, and for the other ones the function is empty
>> >so it will not change existing behaviour. If you are suggesting that I should
>> >create a new API that each architecture could go and implement for setting up the
>> >IRQ line then I would agree that it would be nice to have that, but the question
>> >is how many architectures are outside OF that need this?
>>
>> My suggestion is to define the pcibios_add_device() for arm arch, like the one
>> in arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c. If my understanding is correct, this
>> patch set address the pci bus setup mostly on arm arch.
>
>And also arm64 at the least.
>
>>
>> For those archs not support OF, this function is empty and has no effect. I
>> agree on this one.
>>
>> For those archs rely on OF, we still have two cases:
>> 1. they would have implement this function like powerpc
>
>Actually, powerpc seems to be the only OF platform reimplementing this function.
>s390 and x86 are not OF platforms.
>
>> 2. have other way to fix it up, otherwise how it works now?
>
>Don't forget that my patchset aims to replace existing house-made code with a more
>generic version. When architectures and platforms switch to my code they will have
>to add this back in their code if it's needed.
>
>> If my assumption is correct, this change will either have no effect, or fix up
>> the irq line the second time. Not harmful, but not necessary.
>
>Well, it will become necessary as old code gets dismantled and converted towards
>this patchset. To give you an example that I'm familiar with, for arch/arm the
>host bridge drivers have moved into drivers/pci/host, but they still depend/use
>the bios32 infrastructure that takes care of setting up the irq. When they switch
>to my version they would have to go and debug the "irq not being assigned" issue
>and it is quite likely that some of the people doing the conversion will complain
>about my code rather than understanding the issue. What I'm trying to do is to
>make switching to my patchset as painless as possible, with a cleanup to remove
>redundant operations coming after the switchover.
>
This means this is a temporary version for the switchover period and will be
reverted after switchover?
>Does that sound like a reasonable plan?
>
>Best regards,
>Liviu
>
>>
>> I am not familiar with other arch, so the second case is my deduction. If this
>> is not correct, please let me know.
>>
>> >
>> >If I understood you correctly, it is a nice idea but slightly outside the scope
>> >of my current patchset.
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >Liviu
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >2.0.4
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >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
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Richard Yang
>> >> Help you, Help me
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Richard Yang
>> Help you, Help me
>>
>>
>
>--
>====================
>| I would like to |
>| fix the world, |
>| but they're not |
>| giving me the |
> \ source code! /
> ---------------
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me
--
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
