[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/7 v4] pci/layerscape: add support for LUT

york sun york.sun at nxp.com
Tue Mar 8 18:30:07 CET 2016


On 03/08/2016 07:56 AM, Stuart Yoder wrote:
> From: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder at nxp.com>
> 
> The per-PCI controller LUT (Look-Up-Table) is a 32-entry table
> that maps PCI requester IDs (bus/dev/fun) to a stream ID.
> 
> This patch implements infrastructure to enable LUT initialization:
>   -define registers offsets
>   -add an index to 'struct ls_pcie' to track next available slot in LUT
>   -add function to allocate the next available entry index
>   -add function to program a LUT entry
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder at nxp.com>
> ---
> -v4: put new support under LS2 #ifdef
> 
>  .../include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/immap_lsch3.h  |    4 +++
>  drivers/pci/pcie_layerscape.c                      |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/immap_lsch3.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/immap_lsch3.h
> index 91f3ce8..d04e336 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/immap_lsch3.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-fsl-layerscape/immap_lsch3.h
> @@ -86,6 +86,10 @@
>  #define PCIE_LUT_BASE				0x80000
>  #define PCIE_LUT_LCTRL0				0x7F8
>  #define PCIE_LUT_DBG				0x7FC
> +#define PCIE_LUT_UDR(n)         (0x800 + (n) * 8)
> +#define PCIE_LUT_LDR(n)         (0x804 + (n) * 8)
> +#define PCIE_LUT_ENABLE         (1 << 31)
> +#define PCIE_LUT_ENTRY_COUNT    32
>  
>  /* Device Configuration */
>  #define DCFG_BASE		0x01e00000
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie_layerscape.c b/drivers/pci/pcie_layerscape.c
> index bb29222..8435446 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie_layerscape.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie_layerscape.c
> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ struct ls_pcie {
>  	void __iomem *dbi;
>  	void __iomem *va_cfg0;
>  	void __iomem *va_cfg1;
> +	int next_lut_index;
>  	struct pci_controller hose;
>  };
>  
> @@ -482,6 +483,34 @@ static void ls_pcie_setup_ep(struct ls_pcie *pcie, struct ls_pcie_info *info)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +#if defined(CONFIG_LS2080A) || defined(CONFIG_LS2085A)

Would CONFIG_FSL_LSCH3 serve this purpose better? We will have other SoC in the
same family.

York


More information about the U-Boot mailing list