* Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/12/2012 12:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > * Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 06/11/2012 09:05 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> This commit adds support for instantiating the Tegra PCIe
> >>> controller from a device tree.
> >>
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/tegra-pcie.txt
> >>
> >> Can we please name this nvidia,tegra20-pcie.txt to match the
> >> naming of all the other Tegra bindings.
> >
> > Yes, will do.
> >
> >>> +Required properties: +- compatible: "nvidia,tegra20-pcie" +-
> >>> reg: physical base address and length of the controller's
> >>> registers
> >>
> >> Since there's more than one range now, that should specify how
> >> many entries are required and what they represent.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> >>> +Optional properties: +- pex-clk-supply: supply voltage for
> >>> internal reference clock +- vdd-supply: power supply for
> >>> controller (1.05V)
> >>
> >> Those shouldn't be optional. If the board has no regulator, the
> >> board's .dts should provide a fixed always-on regulator that
> >> those properties can refer to, so that the driver can always
> >> get() those regulators.
> >
> > That'll add more dummy regulators and I don't think sprinkling them
> > across the DTS is going to work very well. Maybe collecting them
> > under a top-level "regulators" node is a good option. If you have a
> > better alternative, I'm all open for it.
> >
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
> >>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
> >>
> >>> + pci {
> >> ...
> >>> + status = "disable";
> >>
> >> That should be "disabled"; sorry for providing a bad example.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pcie.c
> >>> b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pcie.c
> >>
> >>> +static struct tegra_pcie_pdata *tegra_pcie_parse_dt(struct
> >>> platform_device *pdev)
> >>
> >>> + if (of_find_property(node, "vdd-supply", NULL)) {
> >>
> >> As mentioned above, that if statement should be removed, since
> >> the regulators shouldn't be optional.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> >>> + pcie->vdd_supply = regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vdd");
> >>
> >> Those could be devm_regulator_get(). Then tegra_pcie_remove()
> >> wouldn't have to put() them.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < TEGRA_PCIE_MAX_PORTS; i++) +
> >>> pdata->enable_ports[i] = true;
> >>
> >> Shouldn't the DT indicate which ports are used? I assume there's
> >> some reason that the existing driver allows that to be
> >> configured, rather than always enabling all ports. At least,
> >> enumeration time wasted on non-existent ports springs to mind,
> >> and perhaps attempting to enable port 1 when port 0 is x4 and
> >> using all the lanes would cause errors in port 0?
> >
> > Yes, that's been on my mind as well. I'm not sure about the best
> > binding for this. Perhaps something like:
> >
> > pci { enable-ports = <0 1 2>; };
> >
> > Would do?
>
> That seems reasonable, although since the property is presumably
> something specific to the Tegra PCIe binding, not generic, I think it
> should be nvidia,enable-ports.
I came up with the following alternative:
pci {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-pcie";
reg = <0x80003000 0x00000800 /* PADS registers */
0x80003800 0x00000200 /* AFI registers */
0x80004000 0x00100000 /* configuration space */
0x80104000 0x00100000 /* extended configuration space */
0x80400000 0x00010000 /* downstream I/O */
0x90000000 0x10000000 /* non-prefetchable memory */
0xa0000000 0x10000000>; /* prefetchable memory */
interrupts = <0 98 0x04 /* controller interrupt */
0 99 0x04>; /* MSI interrupt */
status = "disabled";
ranges = <0x80000000 0x80000000 0x00002000 /* 2 root ports */
0x80004000 0x80004000 0x00100000 /* configuration space */
0x80104000 0x80104000 0x00100000 /* extended configuration space */
0x80400000 0x80400000 0x00010000 /* downstream I/O */
0x90000000 0x90000000 0x10000000 /* non-prefetchable memory */
0xa0000000 0xa0000000 0x10000000>; /* prefetchable memory */
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
port@80000000 {
reg = <0x80000000 0x00001000>;
status = "disabled";
};
port@80001000 {
reg = <0x80001000 0x00001000>;
status = "disabled";
};
};
The "ranges" property can probably be cleaned up a bit, but the most
interesting part is the port@ children, which can simply be enabled in board
DTS files by setting the status property to "okay". I find that somewhat more
intuitive to the variant with an "enable-ports" property.
What do you think of this?
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpO8V9Mm2kKE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
