Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: pci: Add Sophgo SG2042 PCIe host

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2024/12/11 1:33, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 03:19:38PM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:
Add binding for Sophgo SG2042 PCIe host controller.
+  sophgo,pcie-port:
This is just an index, isn't it?  I don't see why it should include
"sophgo" unless it encodes something sophgo-specific.
I previously understood that if it is not a standard attribute defined by the dts schema, such as pcie-port, which is defined by me, it must be prefixed with vendor. Is that right?

+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
+    description: |
+      SG2042 uses Cadence IP, every IP is composed of 2 cores(called link0
Add space before "(".  More instances below.
ok

+      & link1 as Cadence's term). "sophgo,pcie-port" is used to identify which
+      core/link the pcie host controller node corresponds to.
s/pcie/PCIe/ for consistency in the text.  More instances below.
ok

+      The Cadence IP has two modes of operation, selected by a strap pin.
+
+      In the single-link mode, the Cadence PCIe core instance associated
+      with Link0 is connected to all the lanes and the Cadence PCIe core
+      instance associated with Link1 is inactive.
+
+      In the dual-link mode, the Cadence PCIe core instance associated
+      with Link0 is connected to the lower half of the lanes and the
+      Cadence PCIe core instance associated with Link1 is connected to
+      the upper half of the lanes.
I assume this means there are two separate Root Ports, one for Link0
and a second for Link1?
Yes. So the naming of pcie_rcX is wrong, I will correct it, thanks.

+      SG2042 contains 2 Cadence IPs and configures the Cores as below:
+
+                     +-- Core(Link0) <---> pcie_rc0   +-----------------+
+                     |                                |                 |
+      Cadence IP 1 --+                                | cdns_pcie0_ctrl |
+                     |                                |                 |
+                     +-- Core(Link1) <---> disabled   +-----------------+
+
+                     +-- Core(Link0) <---> pcie_rc1   +-----------------+
+                     |                                |                 |
+      Cadence IP 2 --+                                | cdns_pcie1_ctrl |
+                     |                                |                 |
+                     +-- Core(Link1) <---> pcie_rc2   +-----------------+
+
+      pcie_rcX is pcie node ("sophgo,sg2042-pcie-host") defined in DTS.
+      cdns_pcie0_ctrl is syscon node ("sophgo,sg2042-pcie-ctrl") defined in DTS
+
+      cdns_pcieX_ctrl contains some registers shared by pcie_rcX, even two
+      RC(Link)s may share different bits of the same register. For example,
+      cdns_pcie1_ctrl contains registers shared by link0 & link1 for Cadence IP 2.
An RC doesn't have a Link.  A Root Port does.

+      "sophgo,pcie-port" is defined to flag which core(link) the rc maps to, with
+      this we can know what registers(bits) we should use.
+
+  sophgo,syscon-pcie-ctrl:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
+    description:
+      Phandle to the PCIe System Controller DT node. It's required to
+      access some MSI operation registers shared by PCIe RCs.
I think this probably means "shared by PCIe Root Ports", not RCs.
It's unlikely that this hardware has multiple Root Complexes.
Ok, I will fix this.

+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+  - reg-names
+  - vendor-id
+  - device-id
+  - sophgo,syscon-pcie-ctrl
+  - sophgo,pcie-port
It looks like vendor-id and device-id apply to PCI devices, i.e.,
things that will show up in lspci, I assume Root Ports in this case.
Can we make this explicit in the DT, e.g., something like this?

   pcie@62000000 {
     compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pcie-host";
     port0: pci@0,0 {
       vendor-id = <0x1f1c>;
       device-id = <0x2042>;
     };

Sorry, I don't understand your meaning very well.  Referring to the topology diagram I drew above, is it okay to write DTS as follows?

pcie@7060000000 {
    compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pcie-host";
    ...... // other properties
    pci@0,0 {
      vendor-id = <0x1f1c>;
      device-id = <0x2042>;
    };
}

pcie@7062000000 {
    compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pcie-host";
    ...... // other properties
    pci@0,0 {
      vendor-id = <0x1f1c>;
      device-id = <0x2042>;
    };
}

pcie@7062800000 {
    compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pcie-host";
    ...... // other properties
    pci@1,0 {
      vendor-id = <0x1f1c>;
      device-id = <0x2042>;
    };

}

And with this change, I can drop the “pcie-port”property and use the port name to figure out the port number, right?


+additionalProperties: true
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
+
+    pcie@62000000 {
+      compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pcie-host";
+      device_type = "pci";
+      reg = <0x62000000  0x00800000>,
+            <0x48000000  0x00001000>;
+      reg-names = "reg", "cfg";
+      #address-cells = <3>;
+      #size-cells = <2>;
+      ranges = <0x81000000 0 0x00000000 0xde000000 0 0x00010000>,
+               <0x82000000 0 0xd0400000 0xd0400000 0 0x0d000000>;
+      bus-range = <0x80 0xbf>;
+      vendor-id = <0x1f1c>;
+      device-id = <0x2042>;
+      cdns,no-bar-match-nbits = <48>;
+      sophgo,pcie-port = <0>;
+      sophgo,syscon-pcie-ctrl = <&cdns_pcie1_ctrl>;
+      msi-parent = <&msi_pcie>;
+      msi_pcie: msi {
+        compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-pcie-msi";
+        msi-controller;
+        interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
+        interrupts = <123 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+        interrupt-names = "msi";
+      };
+    };
--
2.34.1





[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux