On 09/13/2013 04:53 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Sep 13, 2013, at 4:14 AM, Valentin Longchamp wrote: >> On 09/11/2013 08:58 AM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: >>> + >>> +&pci0 { >>> + compatible = "fsl,t1042-pcie", "fsl,qoriq-pcie-v2.4", "fsl,qoriq-pcie"; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + bus-range = <0x0 0xff>; >>> + interrupts = <20 2 0 0>; >>> + fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>; >>> + pcie@0 { >>> + reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; >>> + #interrupt-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + interrupts = <20 2 0 0>; >>> + interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>; >>> + interrupt-map = < >>> + /* IDSEL 0x0 */ >>> + 0000 0 0 1 &mpic 40 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 2 &mpic 1 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 3 &mpic 2 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 4 &mpic 3 1 0 0 >>> + >; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +&pci1 { >>> + compatible = "fsl,t1042-pcie", "fsl,qoriq-pcie-v2.4", "fsl,qoriq-pcie"; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + bus-range = <0 0xff>; >>> + interrupts = <21 2 0 0>; >>> + fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>; >>> + pcie@0 { >>> + reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; >>> + #interrupt-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + interrupts = <21 2 0 0>; >>> + interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>; >>> + interrupt-map = < >>> + /* IDSEL 0x0 */ >>> + 0000 0 0 1 &mpic 41 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 2 &mpic 5 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 3 &mpic 6 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 4 &mpic 7 1 0 0 >>> + >; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +&pci2 { >>> + compatible = "fsl,t1042-pcie", "fsl,qoriq-pcie-v2.4", "fsl,qoriq-pcie"; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + bus-range = <0x0 0xff>; >>> + interrupts = <22 2 0 0>; >>> + fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>; >>> + pcie@0 { >>> + reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; >>> + #interrupt-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + interrupts = <22 2 0 0>; >>> + interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>; >>> + interrupt-map = < >>> + /* IDSEL 0x0 */ >>> + 0000 0 0 1 &mpic 42 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 2 &mpic 9 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 3 &mpic 10 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 4 &mpic 11 1 0 0 >>> + >; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +&pci3 { >>> + compatible = "fsl,t1042-pcie", "fsl,qoriq-pcie-v2.4", "fsl,qoriq-pcie"; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + bus-range = <0x0 0xff>; >>> + interrupts = <23 2 0 0>; >>> + fsl,iommu-parent = <&pamu0>; >>> + pcie@0 { >>> + reg = <0 0 0 0 0>; >>> + #interrupt-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + #address-cells = <3>; >>> + device_type = "pci"; >>> + interrupts = <23 2 0 0>; >>> + interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>; >>> + interrupt-map = < >>> + /* IDSEL 0x0 */ >>> + 0000 0 0 1 &mpic 43 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 2 &mpic 0 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 3 &mpic 4 1 0 0 >>> + 0000 0 0 4 &mpic 8 1 0 0 >>> + >; >>> + }; >>> +}; >>> + >> >> The above 4 nodes have the consequence that it will then be mandatory that a >> board support .dts file that would like to inlcude the SOC-NAMEsi-post.dtsi >> defines the pci0, pci1, pci2, pci3 aliases. >> >> Now it is possible that a board does not implement pci1 for instance. So its >> .dts file would ideally not define a node for it, and thus not define the >> respective alias. However, this triggers this dtc compile error (which is >> correct): >> >>> [chlongv1@chber1-10533x linux-km]$ make kmp204x.dtb >>> DTC arch/powerpc/boot/kmp204x.dtb >>> Error: arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p2041si-post.dtsi:98.2-3 label or path, >>> 'pci1', not found >>> FATAL ERROR: Syntax error parsing input tree >>> make[1]: *** [arch/powerpc/boot/kmp204x.dtb] Error 1 >>> make: *** [kmp204x.dtb] Error 2 >> >> The solution I have found is to define a "dummy" disabled node so that I can >> define the alias, but I am not really happy about this: >> >>> pci1: pcie@ffe201000 { >>> status = "disabled"; >>> }; >> >> I am here missing something obvious or shouldn't it be possible that such >> .dtsi >> files allow not to define unused/unnecessary nodes ? > > Isn't this correct, that you are disabling the PCIe1 interface on the SoC for > your board? >
Yes it is correct. So this confirms that a board .dts file must disable all not used interfaces/peripherals with such a "disabled" node. I just wanted to be sure that this was the correct way of doing things and that I had not missed a "better" way (where you don't need to define such "disabled" nodes in .dts files). Valentin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev