On 09/01/2018 11:50 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 30 August 2018 at 07:42, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 08/30/2018 03:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:07 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 08/29/2018 05:15 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>> +Simon >>>>> >>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:22 PM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/24/2018 08:27 PM, Marek Vasut 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> >>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, bump ? >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the only missing patch to get my hardware working properly. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think we ever had an agreement on the v1 patch. Simon had a >>>>> long email that pointed out what Linux does seems like a 'fallback' to >>>>> find a node with no compatible string. >>>>> >>>>> Back to this, if we have to go with this way, please create a test >>>>> case to cover this scenario. >>>> >>>> The fact that it works on a particular board is not tested enough? >>>> Do we need a custom, special, synthetic test ? >>>> >>> >>> I believe that's always been the requirement against the DM code >>> changes. I was requested in the past when I changed something in the >>> DM and I see other people were asked to do so. Like Alex said, it does >>> not mean this patch was not tested enough, but to ensure future >>> commits won't break this. >> >> So, do you have any suggestion how to implement this test ? It seems >> Alex posed the same question. It doesn't seem to be trivial in the >> context of sandbox. > > I suppose you need a PCI_DEVICE() declaration for sandbox, with an > associated DT node and no compatible string. Then check that you can > locate the device and that it read a DT property correctly.
Is there any example of this stuff already ? >>>> Anyway, any feedback on the patch ? Did you test it ? I again only see >>>> "do this random stuff and that random stuff" , but zero actual feedback. >>>> >>> >>> If "this and that random stuff" means test case I asked for, please >>> check my proposal on the v1 patch thread which indicated that a proper >>> test case should be created. You seems to have missed that. >> >> So, any feedback on this actual patch ? > > What is 'potention'? potential typo . > Is there any check needed that it does not attach the same DT node to > two different devices? Or perhaps that cannot happen, since we > shouldn't expect two nodes to share a BDF? I guess it could happen and I didn't find a good solution to this even in Linux. The current take on this possibility seems to be "let's live with it". > I think it looks OK, assuming this is the way we want to go. > > Regards, > Simon > -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot