Rob, Kishon what about the following solution?.... --- drivers/pci/host/pci-dra7xx.c | 12 ++++++++++++ drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c | 9 +++------ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-dra7xx.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-dra7xx.c index 80db09e..bb2635f 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-dra7xx.c +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-dra7xx.c @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ #define PCIECTRL_DRA7XX_CONF_PHY_CS 0x010C #define LINK_UP BIT(16) +#define CPU_TO_BUS_ADDR 0x0FFFFFFF struct dra7xx_pcie { void __iomem *base; @@ -138,6 +139,17 @@ static void dra7xx_pcie_enable_interrupts(struct pcie_port *pp) static void dra7xx_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp) { + if (pp->io_mod_base) + pp->io_mod_base &= CPU_TO_BUS_ADDR; + + if (pp->mem_mod_base) + pp->mem_mod_base &= CPU_TO_BUS_ADDR; + + if (pp->cfg0_mod_base) { + pp->cfg0_mod_base &= CPU_TO_BUS_ADDR; + pp->cfg1_mod_base &= CPU_TO_BUS_ADDR; + } + dw_pcie_setup_rc(pp); dra7xx_pcie_establish_link(pp); if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)) diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c index 69486be..06c682b 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c @@ -416,8 +416,7 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp) pp->io_base = range.cpu_addr; /* Find the untranslated IO space address */ - pp->io_mod_base = of_read_number(parser.range - - parser.np + na, ns); + pp->io_mod_base = range.cpu_addr;; } if (restype == IORESOURCE_MEM) { of_pci_range_to_resource(&range, np, &pp->mem); @@ -426,8 +425,7 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp) pp->mem_bus_addr = range.pci_addr; /* Find the untranslated MEM space address */ - pp->mem_mod_base = of_read_number(parser.range - - parser.np + na, ns); + pp->mem_mod_base = range.cpu_addr; } if (restype == 0) { of_pci_range_to_resource(&range, np, &pp->cfg); @@ -437,8 +435,7 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp) pp->cfg1_base = pp->cfg.start + pp->cfg0_size; /* Find the untranslated configuration space address */ - pp->cfg0_mod_base = of_read_number(parser.range - - parser.np + na, ns); + pp->cfg0_mod_base = range.cpu_addr; pp->cfg1_mod_base = pp->cfg0_mod_base + pp->cfg0_size; } -- 1.9.1 > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-pci-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-pci- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Herring > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:53 PM > To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I > Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; Bjorn Helgaas; arnd@xxxxxxxx; > lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; Wangzhou (B); robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; > james.morse@xxxxxxx; Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Yuanzhichang; Zhudacai; zhangjukuo; qiuzhenfa; Liguozhu (Kenneth); > Jingoo Han; Pratyush Anand; Arnd Bergmann > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] PCI: Store PCIe bus address in struct > of_pci_range > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> > wrote: > > +Arnd > > > > Hi, > > > > On Friday 31 July 2015 07:55 PM, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > >> [+cc Kishon] > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: linux-pci-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-pci- > >>> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Herring > >>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 9:42 PM > >>> To: Gabriele Paoloni > >>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas; arnd@xxxxxxxx; lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; > Wangzhou > >>> (B); robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; james.morse@xxxxxxx; Liviu.Dudau@xxxxxxx; > >>> linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >>> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Yuanzhichang; Zhudacai; zhangjukuo; > >>> qiuzhenfa; Liguozhu (Kenneth); Jingoo Han; Pratyush Anand > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] PCI: Store PCIe bus address in struct > >>> of_pci_range > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Gabriele Paoloni > >>> <gabriele.paoloni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx] > >>>>> Sent: 30 July 2015 18:15 > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 04:50:55PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote: > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: linux-pci-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-pci- > >>>>>>> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Helgaas > >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 5:15 PM > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:52:13PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni > wrote: > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>>>>>> I don’t think we should rely on [CPU] addresses...what if the > >>>>>>> intermediate > >>>>>>>> translation layer changes the lower significant bits of the > >>> "bus > >>>>>>> address" > >>>>>>>> to translate into a cpu address? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is it really a possiblity that the lower bits could be changed? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've checked all the current deignware users DTs except "pci- > >>>>> layerscape" > >>>>>> that I could not find: > >>>>>> spear1310.dtsi > >>>>>> spear1340.dtsi > >>>>>> dra7.dtsi > >>>>>> imx6qdl.dtsi > >>>>>> imx6sx.dtsi > >>>>>> keystone.dtsi > >>>>>> exynos5440.dtsi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> None of them modifies the lower bits. To be more precise the > only > >>> guy > >>>>>> that provides another translation layer is "dra7.dtsi": > >>>>>> axi0 > >>>>>> http://lxr.free- > >>> electrons.com/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi#L207 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> axi1 > >>>>>> http://lxr.free- > >>> electrons.com/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi#L241 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For this case masking the top 4bits (bits28 to 31) should make > the > >>> job. > >>> > >>> IMO, we should just fix this case. After further study, I don't > think > >>> this is a DW issue, but rather an SOC integration issue. > >>> > >>> I believe you can just fixup the address in the pp->ops->host_init > hook. > >>> > >> > >> Yes I guess that I could just assign pp->(*)_mod_base to the CPU > address > >> in DW and mask it out in dra7xx_pcie_host_init()... > >> > >> Kishon, would you be ok with that? > > > > Initially I was using *base-mask* property from dt. Me and Arnd > (cc'ed) had > > this discussion [1] before we decided the current approach. It'll be > good to > > check with Arnd too. > > > > [1] -> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014- > May/253528.html > > The problem I have here is the use of ranges does not necessarily mean > fewer address bits are available. It can be used just for convenience > of not putting the full address into every node's reg property. And > vice versa, there are probably plenty of cases where we have the full > address in the nodes, but really only some of the address bits are > decoded at the IP block. Whether the address bits are present is > rarely cared about or known by s/w folks until you hit a problem like > this. Given this is an isolated case ATM, I would fix it in an > isolated way. It does not affect the binding and could be changed in > the kernel later if this becomes a common need. > > Rob > -- > 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 ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f