On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 May 2014 17:21:13 Srikanth Thokala wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 15 April 2014, Srikanth Thokala wrote:
>> >> +/**
>> >> + * xilinx_pcie_get_config_base - Get configuration base
>> >> + * @bus: Bus structure of current bus
>> >> + * @devfn: Device/function
>> >> + * @where: Offset from base
>> >> + *
>> >> + * Return: Base address of the configuration space needed to be
>> >> + * accessed.
>> >> + */
>> >> +static void __iomem *xilinx_pcie_get_config_base(struct pci_bus *bus,
>> >> + unsigned int devfn,
>> >> + int where)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct xilinx_pcie_port *port = sys_to_pcie(bus->sysdata);
>> >> + int relbus;
>> >> +
>> >> + relbus = (bus->number << ECAM_BUS_NUM_SHIFT) |
>> >> + (devfn << ECAM_DEV_NUM_SHIFT);
>> >> +
>> >> + return port->reg_base + relbus + where;
>> >> +}
>> >
>> > Does this mean you have an ECAM-compliant config space? Nice!
>> >
>> > Would it be possible to split the config space access out into
>> > a separate file? It would be nice to share that with the generic
>> > ECAM driver that Will Deacon has sent.
>>
>> Yes, it should be possible. Is it ok, if I work on top of this driver?
>
> Do you mean as a follow-on patch? My feeling is that since we are trying
> to merge both for 3.16, it would be good to get it done right away if
> it doesn't cause too much extra work.
Sure, I will work with Will and let you know.
>
>> >> +/**
>> >> + * xilinx_pcie_enable_msi - Enable MSI support
>> >> + * @port: PCIe port information
>> >> + */
>> >> +static void xilinx_pcie_enable_msi(struct xilinx_pcie_port *port)
>> >> +{
>> >> + port->msg_addr = __get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL, 0);
>> >> +
>> >> + pcie_write(port, 0x0, XILINX_PCIE_REG_MSIBASE1);
>> >> + pcie_write(port, virt_to_phys((void *)port->msg_addr),
>> >> + XILINX_PCIE_REG_MSIBASE2);
>> >> +}
>> >
>> > As a general comment about the MSI implementation, I wonder if this is actually
>> > generic enough to be shared with other host controllers. It could be moved
>> > into a separate file like the config space access in that case.
>>
>> I feel the MSI implementation is not generic by looking into the other
>> host controllers,
>> it is more specific to the hardware. Correct me, if am wrong.
>
> The other host controllers are certainly incompatible, but this one looks
> like it could be used on other controllers easily.
>
> Splitting it out would also make it easier to use another MSI implementation
> like the one in the GIC.
I need to look into this and I will come back to you.
>
>
>> >> + /* Register the device */
>> >> + pci_common_init_dev(dev, &hw);
>> >> +
>> >> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, port);
>> >
>> > Don't you have to do the platform_set_drvdata() before pci_common_init_dev()?
>>
>> It should be fine, as I don't see any dependencies.
>
> Ah, it's only used in the remove function. It looks correct then, but I think
> it would be better to set it first anyway, in case another function starts using
> the drvdata later and that function may get called by the PCI initialization.
Ok.
Srikanth
>
> Arnd
> --
> 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
--
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
