On 5/19/2015 4:14 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 08:43:47PM +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>> On 05/13/2015 06:30 PM, Ray Jui wrote:
>>> Hi Rafal,
>>>
>>> On 5/13/2015 9:19 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> On 13 May 2015 at 17:56, Ray Jui <rjui@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2015 11:27 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 May 2015 at 23:23, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> This driver adds support for the PCIe 2.0 controller found on the bcma
>>>>>>> bus. This controller can be found on (mostly) all Broadcom BCM470X /
>>>>>>> BCM5301X ARM SoCs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The driver found in the Broadcom SDK does some more stuff, like setting
>>>>>>> up some DMA memory areas, chaining MPS and MRRS to 512 and also some
>>>>>>> PHY changes like "improving" the PCIe jitter and doing some special
>>>>>>> initializations for the 3rd PCIe port.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was tested on a bcm4708 board with 2 PCIe ports and wireless cards
>>>>>>> connected to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PCI_DOMAINS is needed by this driver, because normally there is more
>>>>>>> than one PCIe controller and without PCI_DOMAINS only the first
>>>>>>> controller gets registered.
>>>>>>> This controller gets 6 IRQs, the last one is trigged by all IRQ events.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +static int iproc_pcie_bcma_probe(struct bcma_device *bdev)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct iproc_pcie *pcie;
>>>>>>> + LIST_HEAD(res);
>>>>>>> + struct resource res_mem;
>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + pcie = devm_kzalloc(&bdev->dev, sizeof(*pcie), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>> + if (!pcie)
>>>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + pcie->dev = &bdev->dev;
>>>>>>> + bcma_set_drvdata(bdev, pcie);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + pcie->base = bdev->io_addr;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + res_mem.start = bdev->addr_s[0];
>>>>>>> + res_mem.end = bdev->addr_s[0] + SZ_128M - 1;
>>>>>>> + res_mem.name = "PCIe MEM space";
>>>>>>> + res_mem.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM;
>>>>>>> + pci_add_resource(&res, &res_mem);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + pcie->resources = &res;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + pcie->map_irq = iproc_pcie_bcma_map_irq;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + ret = iproc_pcie_setup(pcie);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I don't like this part of iproc design. It lefts
>>>>>> pcie->resources pointing to some random memory after the setup/probe
>>>>>> are done. Guess it should be a separated parameter or sth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patch is still OK, I just refer to generic iproc possible issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry Rafal, but could you please be more specific on this?
>>>>
>>>> iproc_pcie_pltfm_probe (and iproc_pcie_bcma_probe) have local "res"
>>>> variable (each its own). They do:
>>>> pcie->resources = &res;
>>>> and then they call
>>>> iproc_pcie_setup(pcie);
>>>>
>>>> After iproc_pcie_pltfm_probe / iproc_pcie_bcma_probe returns, the
>>>> pointer pcie->resources is not valid anymore, yet pcie struct is still
>>>> in use. Of course pcie->resources isn't used anymore, but still, it's
>>>> some in-struct pointer (to the random memory since local variable is
>>>> not accessible anymore).
>>>>
>>>> I think you should drop
>>>> struct list_head *resources;
>>>> from the struct iproc_pcie and use
>>>> iproc_pcie_setup(struct iproc_pcie *pcie, struct list_head *resources)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay thanks. That makes sense.
>>>
>>> Or I should keep a copy of the resources under pcie->resources. In the
>>> current pcie-iproc.c, the resource is not used anywhere else except when
>>> creating the root bus under iproc_pcie_setup. But in the future, I might
>>> need to add more code to explicitly program the outbound/inbound windows
>>> so this driver can work with some other iProc SoCs where the desired
>>> windows do not match power-on-reset values.
>>>
>>> I plan to change this along with the window programming patch in the
>>> future. I also think Hauke's current patch is fine.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>> I think parts of this resources are allocated and never freed.
>>
>> pci_add_resource() allocates some bytes, but I do not see where they are
>> freed, this also applies to the platform driver.
>
> Where are we on this patch? I see Ray's ack for [1/2], and a "I think the
> current patch is fine"; is that an ack for [2/2] as well?
>
> Bjorn
>
Yes, IMO, both patches from Hauke to extend the Iproc PCIe to support
BCMA bus are fine.
Thanks,
Ray
--
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
