[U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: tegra: Fix port information parsing
Simon Glass
sjg at chromium.org
Fri Jan 30 17:29:59 CET 2015
Hi Thierry,
On 30 January 2015 at 05:24, Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:19:56PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
>> Hi Thierry,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:04:06AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
>> >> Hi Thierry,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:15:42PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Thierry,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:37:07AM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Hi Sjoerd,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On 20 January 2015 at 10:06, Sjoerd Simons
>> >> >> >> > <sjoerd.simons at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> commit a62e84d7b1824a202dd incorrectly changed the tegra pci code to the
>> >> >> >> >> new fdtdec pci helpers. To get the device index of the root port, the
>> >> >> >> >> "reg" property should be parsed from the dtb (as was previously the
>> >> >> >> >> case).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> With this patch i can successfully network boot my jetson tk1
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons at collabora.co.uk>
>> >> >> >> >> ---
>> >> >> >> >> drivers/pci/pci_tegra.c | 5 ++---
>> >> >> >> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Can you also please take a look at this patch?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/430815/
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > It tries to support both options.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Although I still don't see how the Tegra's dts is written, I feel this
>> >> >> >> patch is doing correctly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's in the U-Boot tree, look at arch/arm/dts/tegra124.dtsi for an
>> >> >> > example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Got it. I see:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> pci at 1,0 {
>> >> >> device_type = "pci";
>> >> >> assigned-addresses = <0x82000800 0 0x01000000 0 0x1000>;
>> >> >> reg = <0x000800 0 0 0 0>;
>> >> >> status = "disabled";
>> >> >>
>> >> >> #address-cells = <3>;
>> >> >> #size-cells = <2>;
>> >> >> ranges;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> nvidia,num-lanes = <2>;
>> >> >> };
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So I would read this 'reg = <0x000800 0 0 0 0>' as this is a
>> >> >> downstream port with device number 1 of the root complex.
>> >> >
>> >> > Correct. Note that these root ports don't appear on the bus using the
>> >> > regular configuration space accesses, so the definition here is
>> >> > arbitrary, though in a way to mirror what PCI would typically look like
>> >> > (host bridge 00:00.0, root ports 00:01.0..00:0N.0).
>> >> >
>> >> > The Linux kernel driver (and the U-Boot driver for that matter) rely on
>> >> > this numbering, though, for some aspects of configuration of the root
>> >> > ports.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci_tegra.c b/drivers/pci/pci_tegra.c
>> >> >> >> >> index f9e05ad..67b5fdf 100644
>> >> >> >> >> --- a/drivers/pci/pci_tegra.c
>> >> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci_tegra.c
>> >> >> >> >> @@ -459,7 +459,6 @@ static int tegra_pcie_parse_port_info(const void *fdt, int node,
>> >> >> >> >> unsigned int *lanes)
>> >> >> >> >> {
>> >> >> >> >> struct fdt_pci_addr addr;
>> >> >> >> >> - pci_dev_t bdf;
>> >> >> >> >> int err;
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> err = fdtdec_get_int(fdt, node, "nvidia,num-lanes", 0);
>> >> >> >> >> @@ -470,13 +469,13 @@ static int tegra_pcie_parse_port_info(const void *fdt, int node,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> *lanes = err;
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> - err = fdtdec_get_pci_bdf(fdt, node, &addr, &bdf);
>> >> >> >> >> + err = fdtdec_get_pci_addr(fdt, node, 0, "reg", &addr);
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I suggest replace 0 to FDT_PCI_SPACE_CONFIG.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I do like how 0 actually transports the meaning of "don't care" here.
>> >> >> > The reg property encodes only the BDF, whereas the configuration space
>> >> >> > region for the root ports is encoded in the assigned-addresses property.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Looking at the fdtdec_get_pci_addr() implementation I notice that it
>> >> >> > uses the type parameter to match on the type of region. Devices can have
>> >> >> > more than one region of the same type. How is that supposed to work with
>> >> >> > this function. Perhaps it's nothing we care about for the fdtdec API
>> >> >> > since we don't access those regions anyway from FDT code?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah, yes, some devices may have multiple regions of the same type.
>> >> >> Perhaps we need another parameter bar_index for this api? So far this
>> >> >> API is not used by FDT codes. It is used by the ns16550 driver where
>> >> >> pci ns16550 normally has two bars, one memory and one i/o.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why not use the BARs directly in the ns16550 driver rather than looking
>> >> > it up from the device tree? I assume the device will have to be
>> >> > enumerated anyway to make it work properly, at which point addresses
>> >> > should've been assigned to the memory and I/O BARs.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It is because we cannot predict which bar to look up if we hardcod
>> >> that in the generic ns16550 driver. Normally PCI ns16550 registers can
>> >> be memory-mapped or I/O mapped and it could use any of the 6 BARs.
>> >> What's more, on x86 for memory-mapped and I/O mapped they use
>> >> different instructions to access the registers, and there is one build
>> >> time macro (CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_PORT_MAPPED) to control this.
>> >
>> > That sounds like pretty arbitrary restrictions. For one you can detect
>> > invalid BARs, so selecting the right one should be easy. Also it seems
>> > like adding support for both I/O and memory BARs in the same binary
>> > should be relatively easy to do and not add a whole lot of code to the
>> > driver. But even if you only want one variant you can still select the
>> > correct port and not rely on the region defined in DTB.
>>
>> If the pci device only have two types of BARs, one for memory-mapped
>> register and the other one for i/o-mapped registers, we are good to
>> have the pci device driver to detect the BAR and determine which type
>> of BAR the driver wants to use. However, there are cases that a single
>> pci device may have multiple BARs mapped for different usage and the
>> driver does not know which BAR to use. For example, a ns16550 pci
>> device can have 4 BARs with the first 2 BARs used to map the classic
>> ns16550 registers to memory or i/o while the 3rd and 4th ones are used
>> to do some speicial purpose like gpio or dma or whatever the device
>> vendor wants to. For such case, there are two memory BARs and two i/o
>> BARs and the driver will be confused.
>>
>> As for the specific ns16550 driver to support both memory-mapped and
>> i/o-mapped register access, I see there is a comment block in the
>> ns16550.c:
>>
>> /*
>> * As far as we know it doesn't make sense to support selection of
>> * these options at run-time, so use the existing CONFIG options.
>> */
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_PORT_MAPPED
>> outb(value, (ulong)addr);
>> #elif defined(CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_MEM32) && !defined(CONFIG_SYS_BIG_ENDIAN)
>> out_le32(addr, value);
>> #elif defined(CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_MEM32) && defined(CONFIG_SYS_BIG_ENDIAN)
>> out_be32(addr, value);
>> #elif defined(CONFIG_SYS_BIG_ENDIAN)
>> writeb(value, addr + (1 << plat->reg_shift) - 1);
>> #else
>> writeb(value, addr);
>> #endif
>>
>> Looks that the intention was to have the build-time determination
>> instead of run-time.
>
> So what if you have two UARTs, one using memory-mapped registers and
> another using I/O-mapped registers?
We would adjust the driver. Actually I'd like to get rid of the
#ifdefs, but as I said in the comment we haven't seen such a platform
yet.
Regards,
Simon
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list