On Friday, June 07, 2013 7:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 07 June 2013 18:22:50 Jingoo Han wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/exynos-pcie.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/exynos-pcie.txt
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..3eb4a2d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/exynos-pcie.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> > +* Samsung Exynos PCIe interface
> > +
> > +Required properties:
> > +-compatible: should be "samsung,exynos5440-pcie"
> > +-reg: base addresses and lengths of the pcie conteroller,
> > + additional register for the pcie controller,
> > + the phy controller,
> > + additional register for the phy controller.
> > +- interrupts: interrupt values for level interrupt,
> > + pulse interrupt, special interrupt.
> > +- device_type, set to "pci"
> > +- bus-range: PCI bus numbers covered
>
> Why is it that only a subset of bus numbers are used? Can't you address
> the entire range?
I will remove 'bus-range' property from DT.
>
> > +- ranges: ranges for the PCI memory and I/O regions
> > +- reset-gpio: gpio pin number of power good signal
>
> The 'reset-gpio' property seems incorrect. I think this should either
> use the gpio binding or the reset-controller binding. Specifying
> bare numbers to use as gpio pins does not work, since the number
> space for Linux internal gpio numbers is not necessarily the same
> as used by the hardware.
As you mentioned, other Exynos SoCs such as Exynos5250 set
GPIO properties in DT, as below:
(./arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts)
hdmi {
hpd-gpio = <&gpx3 7 0>;
};
usb@12110000 {
samsung,vbus-gpio = <&gpx2 6 0>;
};
However, the situation of Exynos5440 GPIO is different.
The following bare numbers of GPIO work properly on Exynos5440.
(./arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440-ssdk5440.dts)
pcie0@40000000 {
reset-gpio = <5>;
}
pcie0@40000000 {
reset-gpio = <22>;
}
Thomas Abraham is the author of pinctrl driver for EXYNOS5440.
(./drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-exynos5440.c)
Thomas Abraham or Kukjin Kim, can you confirm this?
If I am wrong, please let me know kindly. :)
>
> I think you also need an interrupt-map property as mandated by
> the PCI binding, in order to use legacy interrupts, as well as
> #address-cells and #size-cells.
>
> > + pcie0@40000000 {
> > + compatible = "samsung,exynos5440-pcie";
> > + reg = <0x40000000 0x4000
> > + 0x290000 0x1000
> > + 0x270000 0x1000
> > + 0x271000 0x40>;
> > + interrupts = <0 20 0>, <0 21 0>, <0 22 0>;
> > + device_type = "pci";
> > + bus-range = <0x0 0xf>;
> > + ranges = <0x00000800 0 0x40000000 0x40000000 0 0x00200000 /* configuration space */
> > + 0x81000000 0 0 0x40200000 0 0x00004000 /* downstream I/O */
> > + 0x82000000 0 0 0x40204000 0 0x10000000>; /* non-prefetchable memory */
> > + };
> > +
> > + pcie1@60000000 {
> > + compatible = "samsung,exynos5440-pcie";
> > + reg = <0x60000000 0x4000
> > + 0x2a0000 0x1000
> > + 0x272000 0x1000
> > + 0x271040 0x40>;
> > + interrupts = <0 23 0>, <0 24 0>, <0 25 0>;
> > + device_type = "pci";
> > + bus-range = <0x0 0xf>;
> > + ranges = <0x00000800 0 0x60000000 0x60000000 0 0x00200000 /* configuration space */
> > + 0x81000000 0 0 0x60200000 0 0x00004000 /* downstream I/O */
> > + 0x82000000 0 0 0x60204000 0 0x10000000>; /* non-prefetchable memory */
> > + };
>
> Is it intentional that in this example you set up both buses to
> have both memory and I/O space start at address 0 in bus space?
No, it is not intentional.
I will fix it.
>
> I think it would be more logical to have non-overlapping addresses.
> You can also choose to have an identity mapping for memory
> space where a PCI bus address maps directly to the physical address
> used to access it, although that will prevent you from using legacy
> VGA cards that require the use of the low 16 MB.
>
> Using a 16kb I/O space rather than a 64KB I/O space per port will
> lead to pci_ioremap_io() map the start of your memory space into
> PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE, which you probably didn't intend.
>
> If your hardware cannot handle a full 64KB window, I would recommend
> to at least leave a hole before the start of the memory window.
OK, I see.
I will fix both MEM space and I/O space.
>
> > +struct pcie_port {
> > + struct device *dev;
> > + u8 controller;
> > + u8 root_bus_nr;
> > + void __iomem *dbi_base;
> > + void __iomem *va_dbi_base;
> > + void __iomem *elbi_base;
> > + void __iomem *va_elbi_base;
> > + void __iomem *base;
> > + void __iomem *phy_base;
> > + void __iomem *va_phy_base;
> > + void __iomem *purple_base;
> > + void __iomem *va_purple_base;
> > + void __iomem *cfg0_base;
> > + void __iomem *va_cfg0_base;
> > + void __iomem *cfg1_base;
> > + void __iomem *va_cfg1_base;
> > + void __iomem *io_base;
> > + void __iomem *mem_base;
> > + spinlock_t conf_lock;
> > + struct resource io;
> > + struct resource mem;
> > + struct resource busn;
>
> A lot of the fields above appear to be duplicated. If you
> pass a physical address, that needs to be a phys_addr_t,
> not void __iomem*. I think most of the physical addresses
> can be removed there, and you just keep the virtual addresses
> but drop the va_ prefix.
OK, I see.
I will use the 'phys_addr_t' and remove redundant physical
addresses.
>
> > +static int add_pcie_port(struct pcie_port *pp, struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct resource *dbi_base;
> > + struct resource *elbi_base;
> > + struct resource *phy_base;
> > + struct resource *purple_base;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + dbi_base = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> > + if (!dbi_base) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "couldn't get dbi base resource\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + if (!devm_request_mem_region(&pdev->dev, dbi_base->start,
> > + resource_size(dbi_base), pdev->name)) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "dbi base resource is busy\n");
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > + pp->dbi_base = (void __iomem *) (unsigned long)dbi_base->start;
>
> That will also let you get rid of the casts here.
Yes, I will remove unnecessary casts.
>
>
> > +static int __exit exynos_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
>
> an empty 'remove' function seems incorrect. I don't know what a
> removable PCI should be doing here, but at least you need to undo
> everything you set up in the probe function.
I will remove the empty 'remove' function.
Thank you for your comments. :)
I will fix it and send v4 patch, soon.
Best regards,
Jingoo Han
>
>
> Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
