Subject: [PATCH v3 10/10] ARM: tegra: pcie: Add device tree support

From: [email-masked] (Thierry Reding)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:57:08 +0200

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 07:36:24AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thierry Reding
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 05:18:04AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Thierry Reding
> >> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 04:50:26PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Thierry Reding
> >> >> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:55:12PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
> >> >> >> index a094c97..c886dff 100644
> >> >> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
> >> >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
> >> >> >> @@ -199,6 +199,68 @@
> >> >> >>               #size-cells = <0>;
> >> >> >>       };
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> +     pcie-controller {
> >> >> >> +             compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-pcie";
> >> >> >> +             reg = <0x80003000 0x00000800   /* PADS registers */
> >> >> >> +                    0x80003800 0x00000200   /* AFI registers */
> >> >> >> +                    0x81000000 0x01000000   /* configuration space */
> >> >> >> +                    0x90000000 0x10000000>; /* extended configuration space */
> >> >> >> +             interrupts = <0 98 0x04   /* controller interrupt */
> >> >> >> +                           0 99 0x04>; /* MSI interrupt */
> >> >> >> +             status = "disabled";
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +             ranges = <0 0 0  0x80000000 0x00001000   /* root port 0 */
> >> >> >> +                       0 1 0  0x81000000 0x00800000   /* port 0 config space */
> >> >> >> +                       0 2 0  0x90000000 0x08000000   /* port 0 ext config space */
> >> >> >> +                       0 3 0  0x82000000 0x00010000   /* port 0 downstream I/O */
> >> >> >> +                       0 4 0  0xa0000000 0x08000000   /* port 0 non-prefetchable memory */
> >> >> >> +                       0 5 0  0xb0000000 0x08000000   /* port 0 prefetchable memory */
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +                       1 0 0  0x80001000 0x00001000   /* root port 1 */
> >> >> >> +                       1 1 0  0x81800000 0x00800000   /* port 1 config space */
> >> >> >> +                       1 2 0  0x98000000 0x08000000   /* port 1 ext config space */
> >> >> >> +                       1 3 0  0x82010000 0x00010000   /* port 1 downstream I/O */
> >> >> >> +                       1 4 0  0xa8000000 0x08000000   /* port 1 non-prefetchable memory */
> >> >> >> +                       1 5 0  0xb8000000 0x08000000>; /* port 1 prefetchable memory */
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've been thinking about this some more. The translations for both the
> >> >> > regular and extended configuration spaces are configured in the top-
> >> >> > level PCIe controller. It is therefore wrong how they are passed to the
> >> >> > PCI host bridges via the ranges property.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I remember Mitch saying that it should be passed down to the children
> >> >> > because it is partitioned among them, but since the layout is compatible
> >> >> > with ECAM, the partitioning isn't as simple as what's in the tree. In
> >> >> > fact the partitions will be dependent on the number of devices attached
> >> >> > to the host bridges.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't understand this last bit about the number of devices attached
> >> >> to the host bridges.  Logically, the host bridge has a bus number
> >> >> aperture that you can know up front, even before you know anything
> >> >> about what devices are below it.  On x86, for example, the ACPI _CRS
> >> >> method has something like "[bus 00-7f]" in it, which means that any
> >> >> buses in that range are below this bridge.  That doesn't tell us
> >> >> anything about which buses actually have devices on them, of course;
> >> >> it's just analogous to the secondary and subordinate bus number
> >> >> registers in a P2P bridge.
> >> >
> >> > That's one of the issues I still need to take care of. Currently no bus
> >> > resource is attached to the individual bridges (nor the PCI controller
> >> > for that matter), so the PCI core will assign them dynamically.
> >>
> >> So your PCI controller driver knows how to program the controller bus
> >> number aperture?  Sometimes people start by assuming that two host
> >> bridges both have [bus 00-ff] apertures, then they enumerate below the
> >> first and adjust the bus number apertures based on what they found.
> >> For example, if they found buses 00-12 behind the first bridge, they
> >> make the apertures [bus 00-12] for the first bridge and [bus 13-ff]
> >> for the second.  That might be the case, depending on what firmware
> >> set up, but it seems like a dubious way to do it, and of course it
> >> precludes a lot of hot-plug scenarios.
> >
> > No, that's not what I meant. What happens is that no pre-assigned bus
> > range is specified for either of the host bridges, so that the range
> > 0x00-0xff will be assigned by default in pci_scan_root_bus().
> 
> My concern is about making the kernel's idea of the host bridge bus
> number aperture match what the hardware is doing.  I'm pretty sure
> that the default [bus 00-ff] range assigned by pci_scan_root_bus()
> doesn't actually match the hardware in most cases, at least when we
> have multiple host bridges in the same PCI domain.
> 
> For example, if you don't supply a bus number range,
> pci_scan_root_bus() will assume [bus 00-ff] for both host bridges.
> But if you could put an analyzer on each of the root buses and then
> read bus 0 config space, will you see that config transaction on
> *both* buses?  I doubt it.
> 
> You have to know at least the bus number of the root bus up front
> before you can even start enumerating it.  The only way to learn that
> is by reading registers in the host bridge or by some external
> mechanism like ACPI or device tree.  That's the beginning of the bus
> number aperture.  The end of the aperture is similar: we can't
> reliably determine it by enumerating devices below the host bridge, so
> we have to know it up front.  You can enumerate starting with the root
> bus number and assigning new subordinate bus numbers as necessary, but
> unless you know the host bridge aperture to begin with, you could
> inadvertently assign a new bus number that actually belongs to a
> different host bridge.

Yes, that was my understanding as well. So currently I haven't seen any
problems with this because I only use one of the two host bridges. But I
suppose I should add code to initialize the bus number aperture properly
either via platform device resources (for the non-DT case) and the
device tree otherwise.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120815/fecfe7f0/attachment.sig>