Hi Marek, On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/15/2018 01:25 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:19:25PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 08/14/2018 11:40 AM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 08/14/2018 03:46 AM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 08/13/2018 04:24 AM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 08/10/2018 02:01 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:37:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 05:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Marek Vasut >>>>>>>>>>>>> <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:39 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Marek Vasut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:14 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Marek Vasut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The PCI controller can have DT subnodes describing extra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of particular PCI devices, ie. a PHY attached to an EHCI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controller >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a PCI bus. This patch parses those DT subnodes and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigns a node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the PCI device instance, so that the driver can extract >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that node and ie. configure the PHY using the PHY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsystem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 46e9c71bdf..306bea0dbf 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ static int >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct udevice *parent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (id = entry->match; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> id->vendor || id->subvendor || >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> id->class_mask; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> id++) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ofnode node; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (!pci_match_one_id(id, find_id)) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -691,6 +693,18 @@ static int >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct udevice *parent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goto error; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debug("%s: Match found: %s\n", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __func__, drv->name); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev->driver_data = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find_id->driver_data; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev_for_each_subnode(node, parent) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + phys_addr_t df, size; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + df = >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofnode_get_addr_size(node, "reg", &size); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (PCI_FUNC(df) == >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PCI_FUNC(bdf) && >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + PCI_DEV(df) == >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PCI_DEV(bdf)) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev->node = node; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + break; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function pci_find_and_bind_driver() is supposed to bind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are NOT in the device tree. Adding device tree access in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routine is quite odd. You can add the EHCI controller that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHY subnodes in the device tree and there is no need to modify >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything I believe. If you are looking for an example, please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pciuart0 in arch/x86/dts/crownbay.dts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well this does not work for me, the EHCI PCI doesn't get a DT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assigned, check r8a7794.dtsi for the PCI devices I use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that's because you don't specify a "compatible" string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two EHCI PCI nodes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's perfectly fine, why should I specify it ? Linux has no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with it either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Without a "compatible" string, DM does not bind any device in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> device tree to a driver, hence no device node created. This is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DT is NOT Linux specific, it is OS-agnostic, DT describes hardware >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> hardware only. If U-Boot cannot parse DT correctly, U-Boot is >>>>>>>>>>>> broken and >>>>>>>>>>>> must be fixed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is a fix. If there is a better fix, I am open to it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DT should but isn't always OS agnostic. DTS files that reside in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> Linux Kernel are in practice is Linux-centric with the expectation >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> even if you could solve a given problem with valid DTS changes you >>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>> whatever is parsing it do additional logic instead. That, >>>>>>>>>>> approximately, is what your patch is doing. If you added some HW >>>>>>>>>>> description information to the dtsi file everything would work as >>>>>>>>>>> expected as your DTS is describing the hardware and U-Boot is >>>>>>>>>>> reading >>>>>>>>>>> that description and figuring out what to do with it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, you need additional logic to match the PCI controller subnode >>>>>>>>>> in DT >>>>>>>>>> with PCI device BFD, that's expected. You do NOT need extra >>>>>>>>>> compatibles, >>>>>>>>>> the PCI bus gives you enough information to match a driver on them. >>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>> fact, adding a compatible can interfere with this matching. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please, read U-Boot's doc/driver-model/pci-info.txt. You really don't >>>>>>>>> understand current implementation in U-Boot. In short, U-Boot supports >>>>>>>>> two scenarios for PCI driver binding: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That documentation is wrong and needs to be fixed. The compatible is >>>>>>>> optional. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No it is not wrong. The documentation reflects the update-to-date >>>>>>> U-Boot support of PCI bus with DM. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is incomplete, as it cannot parse subnodes without compatible >>>>>> strings. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, it's by design, as I said many times. It can support parsing >>>>> subnodes with a "compatible" string existence. >>>> >>>> It can support parsing subnodes with a "compatible" string existence AND >>>> It can NOT support parsing subnodes without a "compatible" string >>>> existence THUS It is incomplete. >>>> >>>>>>>>> - Declare a PCI device in the device tree. That requires specifying a >>>>>>>>> 'compatible' string as well as 'reg' property as defined by the 'PCI >>>>>>>>> Bus Binding' spec. DM uses the 'compatible' string to bind the driver >>>>>>>>> for the device. >>>>>>>>> - Don't declare a PCI device in the device tree. Instead, using >>>>>>>>> U_BOOT_PCI_DEVICE() to declare a device and driver mapping. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can choose either two when you support PCI devices on your board, >>>>>>>>> but you cannot mix both support together and make them a mess. In this >>>>>>>>> patch, you hacked pci_find_and_bind_driver() which is the 2nd scenario >>>>>>>>> to support the 1st scenario. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, the DT contains all the required information to bind the node >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> the driver instance. Clearly, we need option 3 for this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then that's a new design proposal. Anything that wants to mess up >>>>>>> current design is a hack. >>>>>> >>>>>> That means every single patch anyone submits is now a hack ? Please ... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I never said "every single patch anyone submits is now a hack". "You >>>>> are inserting words into my mouth and I dislike that." I said your >>>>> current patch is against the design, and mess up current design which >>>>> is a hack. >>>> >>>> But then every patch which changes the behavior is against "the design" >>>> and thus is a hack. Ultimately, most improvements would be considered a >>>> hack. >>> >>> No it depends. For this case, there are two options that DM PCI >>> currently provides. You created a 3rd option that bring option 1 and 2 >>> together in a mixed way, yet without any documenting and additional >>> other changes. If you posted such changes in a series and have all >>> stuff well considered, I would not consider it a hack, but a proposed >>> design change. >> >> Also, the design document is not immutable and can and should be updated >> as needed to match changes in the code. > > So what is the conclusion here ? Patch the design document and apply > this patch as is ? >
I think we should see Simon's comments before we move forward. The proposal I made before should come in a series, not just documentation. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot