On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:54:53AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > [+cc Lorenzo] > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:54:31AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:23:48PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: > > > PCIe host controller in Tegra SoCs has 1GB of aperture available > > > for mapping end points config space, IO and BARs. In that, currently > > > 256MB is being reserved for mapping end points configuration space > > > which leaves less memory space available for mapping end points BARs > > > on some of the platforms. > > > This patch series attempts to map only 4K space from 1GB aperture to > > > access end points configuration space. > > > > > > Currently, this change can benefit T20 and T186 in saving (i.e. repurposed > > > to use for BAR mapping) physical space as well as kernel virtual mapping space, > > > it saves only kernel virtual address space in T30, T124, T132 and T210. > > > > > > NOTE: Since T186 PCIe DT entry is not yet present in main line (it is currently > > > merged to 'for-4.15/arm64/dt' branch), nothing gets broken with this change for T186. > > > For older platforms (T20, T30, T124, T132, T210), this change works fine without any > > > DT modifications > > > > > > Testing Done on T124, T210 & T186: > > > Enumeration and basic functionality of immediate devices > > > Enumeration of devices behind a PCIe switch > > > Complete 4K configuration space access > > > > > > Vidya Sagar (2): > > > PCI: tegra: refactor config space mapping code > > > ARM64: tegra: limit PCIe config space mapping to 4K for T186 > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra186.dtsi | 8 +- > > > drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c | 125 ++++++++++--------------------- > > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) > > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > there's a bunch of PCI related patches for Tegra floating around on the > > lists. I'm wondering if you'd be okay if I pick those up into the Tegra > > tree after they've been reviewed and send you a pull request later on > > (say around v4.15-rc6). That would allow me to get things cooking in > > linux-next for a bit and get broader testing in addition to the > > flexibility to patch things up if they break. > > Lorenzo will be merging the Tegra stuff, so this is more a question > for him. > > Just to clarify, I think your questions is about putting those patches > in > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git#for-next. > If you put them there they will show up in linux-next, and then when > Lorenzo merges them, you'll have to coordinate so they don't get > merged into linux-next twice (once via the usual PCI tree route and > again via the Tegra tree). > > If you wait until after they've been reviewed to put them into the > Tegra tree, I'm not sure what the gain is, because I assume Lorenzo > would merge them at about that same point. I think that after the review, the Tegra patches that are considered for upstream they should go to -next via the PCI tree as any other platform PCI patches; the relevant patches need ACKs from the respective platform maintainer - I am getting to them as fast as I can. > This cycle isn't going to be ideal timing with all the holidays > coming up. I know I'm going to be traveling and on vacation quite a > bit in the rc5, 6, 7 timeframe. Yes timing is not ideal - I won't be able to review anything in the -rc5 week either but apart from that I should be online. Lorenzo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
