Hi Minghuan,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Lian Minghuan-B31939
<B31939@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Srikanth,
>
> Thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline.
>
>
> On 2014年11月12日 14:22, Srikanth Thokala wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Minghuan Lian
>> <Minghuan.Lian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, pcie-designware.c only supports two ATUs, ATU0 is used
>>> for CFG0 and MEM, ATU1 is used for CFG1 and IO. There is a conflict
>>> when MEM and CFG0 are accessed simultaneously. The patch adds
>>> 'num-atus' property to PCIe dts node to describe the number of
>>> PCIe controller's ATUs. If num_atus is bigger than or equal to 4,
>>> we will change ATUs assignment: ATU0 for CFG0, ATU1 for CFG1,
>>> ATU2 for MEM, ATU3 for IO.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Minghuan Lian <Minghuan.Lian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> change log:
>>> v1-v2:
>>> 1. add the default value to property num-atus description
>>> 2. Use atu_idx[] instead of single values
>>> 3. initialize num_atus to 2
>>>
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pci/designware-pcie.txt | 1 +
>>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c | 53
>>> ++++++++++++++++------
>>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.h | 9 ++++
>>> 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/designware-pcie.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/designware-pcie.txt
>>> index 9f4faa8..64d0533 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/designware-pcie.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/designware-pcie.txt
>>> @@ -26,3 +26,4 @@ Optional properties:
>>> - bus-range: PCI bus numbers covered (it is recommended for new
>>> devicetrees to
>>> specify this property, to keep backwards compatibility a range of
>>> 0x00-0xff
>>> is assumed if not present)
>>> +- num-atus: number of ATUs. The default value is 2 if not present.
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
>>> b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
>>> index dfed00a..46a609d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
>>> @@ -48,6 +48,8 @@
>>> #define PCIE_ATU_VIEWPORT 0x900
>>> #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INBOUND (0x1 << 31)
>>> #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND (0x0 << 31)
>>> +#define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX3 (0x3 << 0)
>>> +#define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX2 (0x2 << 0)
>>> #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX1 (0x1 << 0)
>>> #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0 (0x0 << 0)
>>> #define PCIE_ATU_CR1 0x904
>>> @@ -346,7 +348,7 @@ int __init dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>> struct of_pci_range range;
>>> struct of_pci_range_parser parser;
>>> struct resource *cfg_res;
>>> - u32 val, na, ns;
>>> + u32 num_atus = 2, val, na, ns;
>>
>> I think this can be u8?
>
> [Minghuan] I define num-atus like this: num-atus = <6> (our controller
> supports 6 outbound ATUs)
> So, num_atus should be u32 type.
> If we use u8 type to define num_atus, the dts node should be changed to
> num_atus = /bits/ 8 <8>.
> I prefer the previous definition num-atus = <6> which is more simple and
> clear.
Yes, I agree. But as it holds only 6 possible distinct values, I
prefer to use u8.
>>>
>>> const __be32 *addrp;
>>> int i, index, ret;
>>>
>>> @@ -486,6 +488,19 @@ int __init dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "num-atus", &num_atus);
>>
>> and here too?
>
> [Minghuan] please refer to the above interpretation.
>
>>> + if (num_atus >= 4) {
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG0] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0;
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG1] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX1;
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_MEM] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX2;
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_IO] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX3;
>>> + } else {
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG0] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0;
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_MEM] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0;
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG1] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX1;
>>> + pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_IO] = PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX1;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> if (pp->ops->host_init)
>>> pp->ops->host_init(pp);
>>>
>>> @@ -511,8 +526,9 @@ int __init dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>>
>>> static void dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg0(struct pcie_port *pp, u32
>>> busdev)
>>> {
>>> - /* Program viewport 0 : OUTBOUND : CFG0 */
>>> - dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0,
>>> + /* Program viewport : OUTBOUND : CFG0 */
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp,
>>> + PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG0],
>>> PCIE_ATU_VIEWPORT);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, pp->cfg0_mod_base, PCIE_ATU_LOWER_BASE);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, (pp->cfg0_mod_base >> 32),
>>> PCIE_ATU_UPPER_BASE);
>>> @@ -526,8 +542,9 @@ static void dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg0(struct
>>> pcie_port *pp, u32 busdev)
>>>
>>> static void dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg1(struct pcie_port *pp, u32
>>> busdev)
>>> {
>>> - /* Program viewport 1 : OUTBOUND : CFG1 */
>>> - dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX1,
>>> + /* Program viewport : OUTBOUND : CFG1 */
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp,
>>> + PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG1],
>>> PCIE_ATU_VIEWPORT);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, PCIE_ATU_TYPE_CFG1, PCIE_ATU_CR1);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, pp->cfg1_mod_base, PCIE_ATU_LOWER_BASE);
>>> @@ -541,8 +558,9 @@ static void dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg1(struct
>>> pcie_port *pp, u32 busdev)
>>>
>>> static void dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem_outbound(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>> {
>>> - /* Program viewport 0 : OUTBOUND : MEM */
>>> - dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0,
>>> + /* Program viewport : OUTBOUND : MEM */
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp,
>>> + PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_MEM],
>>> PCIE_ATU_VIEWPORT);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, PCIE_ATU_TYPE_MEM, PCIE_ATU_CR1);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, pp->mem_mod_base, PCIE_ATU_LOWER_BASE);
>>> @@ -557,8 +575,9 @@ static void dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem_outbound(struct
>>> pcie_port *pp)
>>>
>>> static void dw_pcie_prog_viewport_io_outbound(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>> {
>>> - /* Program viewport 1 : OUTBOUND : IO */
>>> - dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX1,
>>> + /* Program viewport : OUTBOUND : IO */
>>> + dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp,
>>> + PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND |
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_IO],
>>> PCIE_ATU_VIEWPORT);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, PCIE_ATU_TYPE_IO, PCIE_ATU_CR1);
>>> dw_pcie_writel_rc(pp, pp->io_mod_base, PCIE_ATU_LOWER_BASE);
>>> @@ -585,12 +604,14 @@ static int dw_pcie_rd_other_conf(struct pcie_port
>>> *pp, struct pci_bus *bus,
>>> dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg0(pp, busdev);
>>> ret = dw_pcie_cfg_read(pp->va_cfg0_base + address,
>>> where, size,
>>> val);
>>> - dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem_outbound(pp);
>>> + if (pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_MEM] ==
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG0])
>>> + dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem_outbound(pp);
>>> } else {
>>> dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg1(pp, busdev);
>>> ret = dw_pcie_cfg_read(pp->va_cfg1_base + address,
>>> where, size,
>>> val);
>>> - dw_pcie_prog_viewport_io_outbound(pp);
>>> + if (pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_IO] ==
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG1])
>>> + dw_pcie_prog_viewport_io_outbound(pp);
>>> }
>>>
>>> return ret;
>>> @@ -610,12 +631,14 @@ static int dw_pcie_wr_other_conf(struct pcie_port
>>> *pp, struct pci_bus *bus,
>>> dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg0(pp, busdev);
>>> ret = dw_pcie_cfg_write(pp->va_cfg0_base + address,
>>> where, size,
>>> val);
>>> - dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem_outbound(pp);
>>> + if (pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_MEM] ==
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG0])
>>> + dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem_outbound(pp);
>>> } else {
>>> dw_pcie_prog_viewport_cfg1(pp, busdev);
>>> ret = dw_pcie_cfg_write(pp->va_cfg1_base + address,
>>> where, size,
>>> val);
>>> - dw_pcie_prog_viewport_io_outbound(pp);
>>> + if (pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_IO] ==
>>> pp->atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_CFG1])
>>> + dw_pcie_prog_viewport_io_outbound(pp);
>>> }
>>>
>>> return ret;
>>> @@ -770,6 +793,10 @@ void dw_pcie_setup_rc(struct pcie_port *pp)
>>> u32 membase;
>>> u32 memlimit;
>>>
>>> + /* set ATUs setting for MEM and IO */
>>> + dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem_outbound(pp);
>>> + dw_pcie_prog_viewport_io_outbound(pp);
>>> +
>>
>> I see from the code, these settings are required for the calls other than
>> dw_pcie_(rd/wr)_other_conf, is it correct? If it is so, I feel this change
>> is
>> independent of this patch and should go as a separte patch?
>
> [Minghuan] dw_pcie(rd/wr)_other_confg only calls the
> dw_pcie_prog_viewport_mem/io_outbound when
> we only use 2 ATUs.
> The patch is to support 4ATUs. If no the calls, ATU2(MEM) and ATU3 will
> not be initialized, and PCIe device driver will be broken.
When you have only 2 ATUs (CFG0=MEM & CFG1=IO), you are calling
mem/io_outbound() twice with the same writes which is not the case in the
original driver. So, I mentioned it should go as a separate patch.
- Srikanth
>
>> - Srikanth
>>
>>> /* set the number of lanes */
>>> dw_pcie_readl_rc(pp, PCIE_PORT_LINK_CONTROL, &val);
>>> val &= ~PORT_LINK_MODE_MASK;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.h
>>> b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.h
>>> index c625675..37604f9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.h
>>> @@ -22,6 +22,14 @@
>>> #define MAX_MSI_IRQS 32
>>> #define MAX_MSI_CTRLS (MAX_MSI_IRQS / 32)
>>>
>>> +enum ATU_TYPE {
>>> + ATU_TYPE_CFG0,
>>> + ATU_TYPE_CFG1,
>>> + ATU_TYPE_MEM,
>>> + ATU_TYPE_IO,
>>> + ATU_TYPE_MAX
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> struct pcie_port {
>>> struct device *dev;
>>> u8 root_bus_nr;
>>> @@ -53,6 +61,7 @@ struct pcie_port {
>>> struct irq_domain *irq_domain;
>>> unsigned long msi_data;
>>> DECLARE_BITMAP(msi_irq_in_use, MAX_MSI_IRQS);
>>> + u8 atu_idx[ATU_TYPE_MAX];
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct pcie_host_ops {
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
