Hi Andy,
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:43:09 +0200
Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My bad, I wrongly answered first in private.
> I already eesend my answers with people in Cc
>
> Now, this is the Andy's your reply.
>
> Sorry for this mistake.
>
> Herve
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:07:16 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 5:56 PM Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:24:43 +0300
> > > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Mon, May 27, 2024 at 06:14:45PM +0200, Herve Codina kirjoitti:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > + if (!dev->of_node) {
> > > > > + dev_err(dev, "Missing of_node for device\n");
> > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > Why do you need this? The code you have in _create_intr_ctrl() will take care
> > > > already for this case.
> > >
> > > The code in _create_intr_ctrl checks for fwnode and not an of_node.
> > >
> > > The check here is to ensure that an of_node is available as it will be use
> > > for DT overlay loading.
> >
> > So, what exactly do you want to check? fwnode check covers this.
> >
> > > I will keep the check here and use dev_of_node() instead of dev->of_node.
> >
> > It needs to be well justified as from a coding point of view this is a
> > duplication.
On DT based system, if a fwnode is set it is an of_node.
On ACPI, if a fwnode is set is is an acpi_node.
The core PCI, when it successfully creates the DT node for a device
(CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES) set the of_node of this device.
So we can have a device with:
- fwnode from ACPI
- of_node from core PCI creation
This driver needs the of_node to load the overlay.
Even if the core PCI cannot create a DT node for the PCI device right
now, I don't expect this LAN855x PCI driver updated when the core PCI
is able to create this PCI device DT node.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > + pci_set_master(pdev);
> > > >
> > > > You don't use MSI, what is this for?
> > >
> > > DMA related.
> > > Allows the PCI device to be master on the bus and so initiate transactions.
> > >
> > > Did I misunderstood ?
> >
> > So, you mean that the PCI device may initiate DMA transactions and
> > they are not related to MSI, correct?
That's my understanding.
Right now, the internal LAN966x DMA controller is not used but it will be
used in a near future.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > +static struct pci_device_id lan966x_pci_ids[] = {
> > > > > + { PCI_DEVICE(0x1055, 0x9660) },
> > > >
> > > > Don't you have VENDOR_ID defined somewhere?
> > >
> > > No and 0x1055 is taken by PCI_VENDOR_ID_EFAR in pci-ids.h
> > > but SMSC acquired EFAR late 1990's and MCHP acquired SMSC in 2012
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan743x_main.h#L851
> > >
> > > I will patch pci-ids.h to create:
> > > #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_SMSC PCI_VENDOR_ID_EFAR
> > > #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_MCHP PCI_VENDOR_ID_SMSC
> > > As part of this patch, I will update lan743x_main.h to remove its own #define
> > >
> > > And use PCI_VENDOR_ID_MCHP in this series.
> >
> > Okay, but I don't think (but I haven't checked) we have something like
> > this ever done there. In any case it's up to Bjorn how to implement
> > this.
Right, I wait for Bjorn reply before changing anything.
Best regards,
Hervé
