[U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Support parsing PCI controller DT subnodes
Marek Vasut
marek.vasut at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 10:27:30 UTC 2018
On 08/15/2018 12:19 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/14/2018 11:40 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/14/2018 03:46 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/13/2018 04:24 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/10/2018 02:01 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:37:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 05:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:39 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:14 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The PCI controller can have DT subnodes describing extra properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of particular PCI devices, ie. a PHY attached to an EHCI controller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a PCI bus. This patch parses those DT subnodes and assigns a node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the PCI device instance, so that the driver can extract details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that node and ie. configure the PHY using the PHY subsystem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 46e9c71bdf..306bea0dbf 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ static int pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct udevice *parent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (id = entry->match;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> id->vendor || id->subvendor || id->class_mask;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> id++) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ofnode node;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (!pci_match_one_id(id, find_id))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -691,6 +693,18 @@ static int pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct udevice *parent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goto error;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debug("%s: Match found: %s\n", __func__, drv->name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev->driver_data = find_id->driver_data;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev_for_each_subnode(node, parent) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + phys_addr_t df, size;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + df = ofnode_get_addr_size(node, "reg", &size);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (PCI_FUNC(df) == PCI_FUNC(bdf) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + PCI_DEV(df) == PCI_DEV(bdf)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev->node = node;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function pci_find_and_bind_driver() is supposed to bind devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are NOT in the device tree. Adding device tree access in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routine is quite odd. You can add the EHCI controller that need such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHY subnodes in the device tree and there is no need to modify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything I believe. If you are looking for an example, please check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pciuart0 in arch/x86/dts/crownbay.dts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well this does not work for me, the EHCI PCI doesn't get a DT node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned, check r8a7794.dtsi for the PCI devices I use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that's because you don't specify a "compatible" string for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two EHCI PCI nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's perfectly fine, why should I specify it ? Linux has no problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> with it either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Without a "compatible" string, DM does not bind any device in the
>>>>>>>>>>> device tree to a driver, hence no device node created. This is not
>>>>>>>>>>> Linux.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DT is NOT Linux specific, it is OS-agnostic, DT describes hardware and
>>>>>>>>>> hardware only. If U-Boot cannot parse DT correctly, U-Boot is broken and
>>>>>>>>>> must be fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is a fix. If there is a better fix, I am open to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DT should but isn't always OS agnostic. DTS files that reside in the
>>>>>>>>> Linux Kernel are in practice is Linux-centric with the expectation that
>>>>>>>>> even if you could solve a given problem with valid DTS changes you make
>>>>>>>>> whatever is parsing it do additional logic instead. That,
>>>>>>>>> approximately, is what your patch is doing. If you added some HW
>>>>>>>>> description information to the dtsi file everything would work as
>>>>>>>>> expected as your DTS is describing the hardware and U-Boot is reading
>>>>>>>>> that description and figuring out what to do with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you need additional logic to match the PCI controller subnode in DT
>>>>>>>> with PCI device BFD, that's expected. You do NOT need extra compatibles,
>>>>>>>> the PCI bus gives you enough information to match a driver on them. In
>>>>>>>> fact, adding a compatible can interfere with this matching.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please, read U-Boot's doc/driver-model/pci-info.txt. You really don't
>>>>>>> understand current implementation in U-Boot. In short, U-Boot supports
>>>>>>> two scenarios for PCI driver binding:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That documentation is wrong and needs to be fixed. The compatible is
>>>>>> optional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No it is not wrong. The documentation reflects the update-to-date
>>>>> U-Boot support of PCI bus with DM.
>>>>
>>>> Which is incomplete, as it cannot parse subnodes without compatible strings.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's by design, as I said many times. It can support parsing
>>> subnodes with a "compatible" string existence.
>>
>> It can support parsing subnodes with a "compatible" string existence AND
>> It can NOT support parsing subnodes without a "compatible" string
>> existence THUS It is incomplete.
>>
>>>>>>> - Declare a PCI device in the device tree. That requires specifying a
>>>>>>> 'compatible' string as well as 'reg' property as defined by the 'PCI
>>>>>>> Bus Binding' spec. DM uses the 'compatible' string to bind the driver
>>>>>>> for the device.
>>>>>>> - Don't declare a PCI device in the device tree. Instead, using
>>>>>>> U_BOOT_PCI_DEVICE() to declare a device and driver mapping.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can choose either two when you support PCI devices on your board,
>>>>>>> but you cannot mix both support together and make them a mess. In this
>>>>>>> patch, you hacked pci_find_and_bind_driver() which is the 2nd scenario
>>>>>>> to support the 1st scenario.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, the DT contains all the required information to bind the node and
>>>>>> the driver instance. Clearly, we need option 3 for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then that's a new design proposal. Anything that wants to mess up
>>>>> current design is a hack.
>>>>
>>>> That means every single patch anyone submits is now a hack ? Please ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never said "every single patch anyone submits is now a hack". "You
>>> are inserting words into my mouth and I dislike that." I said your
>>> current patch is against the design, and mess up current design which
>>> is a hack.
>>
>> But then every patch which changes the behavior is against "the design"
>> and thus is a hack. Ultimately, most improvements would be considered a
>> hack.
>
> No it depends. For this case, there are two options that DM PCI
> currently provides. You created a 3rd option that bring option 1 and 2
> together in a mixed way, yet without any documenting and additional
> other changes. If you posted such changes in a series and have all
> stuff well considered, I would not consider it a hack, but a proposed
> design change.
I am happy to reword the documentation section that's wrong and send a
patch for that.
Do we agree this code change goes in this place or where should it go ?
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list