On 1/26/2016 1:54 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:37:20AM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
Hi Bjorn,
On 1/26/2016 10:22 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Hi Ray,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Ray Jui wrote:
Commit 943ebae781f5 ("PCI: iproc: Add PAXC interface support") causes
regression on EP device detection on BCMA based platforms. This patch
fixes the issue by allowing multiple devices to be configured on the
same bus, for all PAXB based child buses
Reported-by: Rafal Milecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 943ebae781f5 ("PCI: iproc: Add PAXC interface support")
Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
index 5816bce..4627561 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
@@ -171,10 +171,11 @@ static inline void iproc_pcie_ob_write(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
}
static inline bool iproc_pcie_device_is_valid(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
+ unsigned int busnum,
unsigned int slot,
unsigned int fn)
{
- if (slot > 0)
+ if ((pcie->type == IPROC_PCIE_PAXC || busnum == 0) && slot > 0)
return false;
/* PAXC can only support limited number of functions */
I don't understand this. Here's the whole function (with this patch
applied):
static inline bool iproc_pcie_device_is_valid(struct iproc_pcie *pcie,
unsigned int busnum,
unsigned int slot,
unsigned int fn)
{
if ((pcie->type == IPROC_PCIE_PAXC || busnum == 0) && slot > 0)
return false;
/* PAXC can only support limited number of functions */
if (pcie->type == IPROC_PCIE_PAXC && fn >= MAX_NUM_PAXC_PF)
return false;
return true;
}
This says:
- On bus 00, device 0 is the only valid device. That seems
plausible because the devices on bus 00 are probably built-in to
the SoC.
- On PAXC-based systems, device 0 is the only valid device on *any*
bus. Is that really true? If there's any way to add a plug-in
card, this seems overly restrictive.
Yah, PAXC is connected with one internal device within the SoC.
There's no connection brought out of the chip.
PCIe devices are generally all device 0, but this would mean you
cannot plug in a PCIe-to-PCI bridge leading to a PCI device with a
non-zero device number.
I think it also means you could not plug in a PCIe device with ARI
enabled, because I think we store the upper 5 bits of the 8-bit
ARI function number in the PCI_SLOT bits.
- On PAXC-based systems, only functions 0, 1, 2, and 3 are valid
anywhere in the hierarchy. I think this again restricts what what
cards can be plugged in.
Yes, the internal device connected to PAXC supports 4 physical functions.
If iProc only supports devices built directly into the SoC, maybe
these constraints are valid. But if it supports any plugin or
external devices, they don't seem to make sense.
Correct. PAXC only connects to one built-in device, while PAXB can
support external EP devices.
OK, thanks for confirming all that.
Something looks wrong in iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus().
iproc_pcie_device_is_valid() returns true for device 00:00.1,
but the "busno == 0" case in iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus() doesn't
use "fn". So the function number is ignored? That would mean
there's no difference between 000:00.0, 00:00.1, 00:00.2,
00:00.3, etc.
Okay, I should add a check to make sure only function zero is accepted
on bus 0.
I think this would be clearer and less error-prone if
iproc_pcie_device_is_valid() were folded directly into
iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus().
Okay. I'll get rid of 'iproc_pcie_device_is_valid' and fold all of these
check into 'iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus' and then send out patch v2 for review
Bjorn
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
