| Message ID | 34279395.MbRViMjbAR@pcimr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On 06/12/2013 03:19:30 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote: > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:28:59 Scott Wood wrote: > > Yes, I figured it was non-PCIe because the code change that you said > > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else. Generally it's > good > > to explicitly mention the chip you're using, though. > > > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci should be renamed to fsl_setup_indirect_pcie. > > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie > should > > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function > warning. > > > > -Scott > > How about this patch? It uses setup_indirect_pci for the PCI case in > mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in > fsl_setup_indirect_pci > to only use the modified read function in case of PCIe. If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no need to change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci. I see that 85xx is also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be consistent. In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit message? -Scott
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 16:50:26 Scott Wood wrote: > On 06/12/2013 03:19:30 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:28:59 Scott Wood wrote: > > > Yes, I figured it was non-PCIe because the code change that you said > > > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else. Generally it's > > > > good > > > > > to explicitly mention the chip you're using, though. > > > > > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci should be renamed to fsl_setup_indirect_pcie. > > > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie > > > > should > > > > > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function > > > > warning. > > > > > -Scott > > > > How about this patch? It uses setup_indirect_pci for the PCI case in > > mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci > > to only use the modified read function in case of PCIe. > > If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no need to > change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci. I see that 85xx is > also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be > consistent. > > In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit > message? > > -Scott Where is it called for 85xx? As far as I can tell fsl_setup_indirect_pci is called exactly once in fsl_add_bridge and nowhere else (after applying the proposed patch). For 83xx the decision between PCI and PCIe has already been made at the point where the setup function is called. So IMO it doesn't make sense to call fsl_setup_indirect_pci and do the check again. Moreover PCIe on 83xx uses a completely different set of functions. I'll send the proper patch in a separate mail. Rojhalat
On 06/13/2013 02:21:24 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote: > On Wednesday 12 June 2013 16:50:26 Scott Wood wrote: > > On 06/12/2013 03:19:30 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote: > > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:28:59 Scott Wood wrote: > > > > Yes, I figured it was non-PCIe because the code change that you > said > > > > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else. Generally > it's > > > > > > good > > > > > > > to explicitly mention the chip you're using, though. > > > > > > > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci should be renamed to > fsl_setup_indirect_pcie. > > > > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie > > > > > > should > > > > > > > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function > > > > > > warning. > > > > > > > -Scott > > > > > > How about this patch? It uses setup_indirect_pci for the PCI case > in > > > mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in > > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci > > > to only use the modified read function in case of PCIe. > > > > If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no > need to > > change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci. I see that 85xx is > > also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be > > consistent. > > > > In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit > > message? > > > > -Scott > > Where is it called for 85xx? As far as I can tell > fsl_setup_indirect_pci is > called exactly once in fsl_add_bridge and nowhere else (after > applying the > proposed patch). fsl_add_bridge() is where it's called for 85xx. > For 83xx the decision between PCI and PCIe has already been made at > the point where the setup function is called. So IMO it doesn't make > sense > to call fsl_setup_indirect_pci and do the check again. Moreover PCIe > on 83xx > uses a completely different set of functions. My concern is consistency. E.g. if 85xx is using fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both, but 83xx isn't, then a developer using 83xx could end up breaking 85xx by introducing another PCIe dependency in fsl_setup_indirect_pci. Or an 85xx developer could put something non-PCIe-related in fsl_setup_indirect_pci that 83xx would benefit from. Alternatively, you could call it fsl_setup_indirect_pcie, and move the PCIe check into fsl_add_bridge(). -Scott
On Thursday 13 June 2013 11:49:17 Scott Wood wrote: > On 06/13/2013 02:21:24 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 June 2013 16:50:26 Scott Wood wrote: > > > On 06/12/2013 03:19:30 AM, Rojhalat Ibrahim wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 12:28:59 Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > Yes, I figured it was non-PCIe because the code change that you > > > > said > > > > > > > helped was on the non-PCIe branch of the if/else. Generally > > > > it's > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > to explicitly mention the chip you're using, though. > > > > > > > > > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci should be renamed to > > > > fsl_setup_indirect_pcie. > > > > > > > Your patch above should be applied, and fsl_setup_indirect_pcie > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > be moved into the booke/86xx ifdef to avoid an unused function > > > > > > > > warning. > > > > > > > > > -Scott > > > > > > > > How about this patch? It uses setup_indirect_pci for the PCI case > > > > in > > > > > > mpc83xx_add_bridge. Additionally it adds a check in > > > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci > > > > to only use the modified read function in case of PCIe. > > > > > > If we're adding the check to fsl_setup_indirect_pci, there's no > > > > need to > > > > > change the 83xx call back to setup_indirect_pci. I see that 85xx is > > > also callirng fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both; it'd be good to be > > > consistent. > > > > > > In any case, can you send a proper patch with a signoff and commit > > > message? > > > > > > -Scott > > > > Where is it called for 85xx? As far as I can tell > > fsl_setup_indirect_pci is > > called exactly once in fsl_add_bridge and nowhere else (after > > applying the > > proposed patch). > > fsl_add_bridge() is where it's called for 85xx. > > > For 83xx the decision between PCI and PCIe has already been made at > > the point where the setup function is called. So IMO it doesn't make > > sense > > to call fsl_setup_indirect_pci and do the check again. Moreover PCIe > > on 83xx > > uses a completely different set of functions. > > My concern is consistency. E.g. if 85xx is using > fsl_setup_indirect_pci for both, but 83xx isn't, then a developer using > 83xx could end up breaking 85xx by introducing another PCIe dependency > in fsl_setup_indirect_pci. Or an 85xx developer could put something > non-PCIe-related in fsl_setup_indirect_pci that 83xx would benefit from. > > Alternatively, you could call it fsl_setup_indirect_pcie, and move the > PCIe check into fsl_add_bridge(). > > -Scott Ok. I'll post a v2 of the patch. Rojhalat
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c index 028ac1f..45670df 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c @@ -97,22 +97,23 @@ static int fsl_indirect_read_config(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, return indirect_read_config(bus, devfn, offset, len, val); } -static struct pci_ops fsl_indirect_pci_ops = +static struct pci_ops fsl_indirect_pcie_ops = { .read = fsl_indirect_read_config, .write = indirect_write_config, }; +#if defined(CONFIG_FSL_SOC_BOOKE) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_86xx) + static void __init fsl_setup_indirect_pci(struct pci_controller* hose, resource_size_t cfg_addr, resource_size_t cfg_data, u32 flags) { setup_indirect_pci(hose, cfg_addr, cfg_data, flags); - hose->ops = &fsl_indirect_pci_ops; + if (early_find_capability(hose, 0, 0, PCI_CAP_ID_EXP)) /* PCIe */ + hose->ops = &fsl_indirect_pcie_ops; } -#if defined(CONFIG_FSL_SOC_BOOKE) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_86xx) - #define MAX_PHYS_ADDR_BITS 40 static u64 pci64_dma_offset = 1ull << MAX_PHYS_ADDR_BITS; @@ -814,8 +815,8 @@ int __init mpc83xx_add_bridge(struct device_node *dev) if (ret) goto err0; } else { - fsl_setup_indirect_pci(hose, rsrc_cfg.start, - rsrc_cfg.start + 4, 0); + setup_indirect_pci(hose, rsrc_cfg.start, + rsrc_cfg.start + 4, 0); } printk(KERN_INFO "Found FSL PCI host bridge at 0x%016llx. "