On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:04:22PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 10:21:36AM -0500, Frank Li wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 10:42:37AM -0500, Frank Li wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 05:29:16PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 05:14:00PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 02:44:20PM -0500, Frank Li wrote: > > > > > > parent_bus_addr in struct of_range can indicate address information just > > > > > > ahead of PCIe controller. Most system's bus fabric use 1:1 map between > > > > > > input and output address. but some hardware like i.MX8QXP doesn't use 1:1 > > > > > > map. > > ... > > > I saw you have not picked all of these patches during you rework > > pci git branches. > > > > I know you are busy, do you have chance to pick left patch for 6.14. > > This series had a mix of things: several patches related to > .cpu_addr_fixup(), plus several unrelated ones for PHY mode and i.MX8Q > support. I think I picked up all the unrelated ones. > > .cpu_addr_fixup() is a generic problem that affects dwc (dra7xx, imx6, > artpec6, intel-gw, visconti), cadence (cadence-plat), and now > apparently microchip. > > I deferred these because I'm hoping we can come up with a more generic > solution that's easier to apply across all these cases. I don't > really want to merge something that immediately needs to be reworked > for other drivers. > > A few of the things I wonder about: > > - dw_pcie_get_parent_addr() has no DWC dependencies, so it doesn't > make sense to me to have it be DWC-specific and copy and pasted > to other places that need something similar. > > - It doesn't seem elegant to iterate through for_each_pci_range() in > devm_of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(), then again in > dw_pcie_host_init() for io_bus_addr, then again in > dw_pcie_iatu_setup() for each window. Maybe that's the best we > can do, but maybe there's a way to capture what we need on the > first time through. > > - The connection between .cpu_addr_fixup() and use_parent_dt_ranges > is clear in the patches remove a .cpu_addr_fixup(), but not in the > DWC patches on the other end. > > - Ideally, "use_parent_dt_ranges" would be the default and we > wouldn't have a flag to indicate that, and drivers would have to > opt out instead of opt in. They basically already do that by > implementing .cpu_addr_fixup(), so maybe we can take advantage of > that fact. Okay, thanks. let me think how to improve it after 6.14. Frank > > Bjorn
