On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 10:38 +0800, Ryder Lee wrote:
>
> I think the code should look at the bridge address <0x0800 ...> we list
> in bindings for resolving interrupts in this case, but it seems like it
> use the 'pdev->defvn << 8' which is not really we want and will lead to
> mismatch.
>
> interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>;
> interrupt-map = <0x0000 0 0 1 ...>,
> <0x0000 0 0 2 ...>,
> <0x0000 0 0 3 ...>,
> <0x0000 0 0 4 ...>,
>
> 0x0800 0 0 1 ...>,
> 0x0800 0 0 2 ...>,
> 0x0800 0 0 3 ...>,
> 0x0800 0 0 4 ...>;
> ...
> pcie@1,0 {
> reg = <0x0800 0 0 0 0>;
> ...
> };
>
>
> Or, alternatively, we could add a interrupt-map property in both child
> and root node to solve this. The below example is my original version as
> I don't want to change that function either.
The code looks at devfn because it's meant to work for PCI including
when the devices dont have a device node in the DT.
What I'm trying to figure out is what is it that your parent and
children are representing here. Which is/are the root complex ?
What is the actual topology as visible on the PCIe bus (is lspci output
basically) and how does that map to your representation ?
> interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 0>;
> interrupt-map = <0x0000 0 0 0 ...>,
> 0x0800 0 0 0 ...>;
> ...
> pcie@1,0 {
> reg = <0x0800 0 0 0 0>;
> #interrupt-cells = <1>;
> interrupt-map-mask = <0 0 0 0>;
> interrupt-map = <0 0 0 0 ...>;
> ...
> };
>
> However, I can't find any other similar case in documentation.
>
> Thanks.
