All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
To: Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@google.com>,
	Anatol Pomazau <anatol@google.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] pci: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc PCIe support
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:46:46 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150310224646.GC32204@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54FF6EAC.90603@broadcom.com>

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:22:36PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 3/10/2015 2:40 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc Rob, Yijing]
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 05:38:05PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> >> This adds the support for Broadcom iProc PCIe controller
> >>
> >> pcie-iproc.c servers as the common core driver, and front-end bus
> >> interface needs to be added to support different bus interfaces
> >>
> >> pcie-iproc-pltfm.c contains the support for the platform bus interface
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbraden@broadcom.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/pci/host/Kconfig            |   17 ++
> >>  drivers/pci/host/Makefile           |    2 +
> >>  drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc-pltfm.c |  108 +++++++++++
> >>  drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c       |  351 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h       |   42 +++++
> >>  5 files changed, 520 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc-pltfm.c
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig b/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
> >> index 7b892a9..f4d9c90 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
> >> @@ -106,4 +106,21 @@ config PCI_VERSATILE
> >>  	bool "ARM Versatile PB PCI controller"
> >>  	depends on ARCH_VERSATILE
> >>  
> >> +config PCIE_IPROC
> >> +	tristate "Broadcom iProc PCIe controller"
> >> +	help
> >> +	  This enables the iProc PCIe core controller support for Broadcom's
> >> +	  iProc family of SoCs. An appropriate bus interface driver also needs
> >> +	  to be enabled
> >> +
> >> +config PCIE_IPROC_PLTFM
> >> +	tristate "Broadcom iProc PCIe platform bus driver"
> >> +	depends on ARCH_BCM_IPROC || COMPILE_TEST
> >> +	depends on OF
> >> +	select PCIE_IPROC
> >> +	default ARCH_BCM_IPROC
> >> +	help
> >> +	  Say Y here if you want to use the Broadcom iProc PCIe controller
> >> +	  through the generic platform bus interface
> > 
> > Do you anticipate additional front-end bus interfaces?  If not, and maybe
> > even if you do, you might squash everything into pcie-iproc.c.  Then you
> > only need one file (no .h file needed) and the package is a little
> > simpler.  I think it's pretty common to have multiple driver registration
> > methods in the same file (OF, PCI, ACPI, etc.)  And I think it's common to
> > have those methods guarded by the generic config symbol (CONFIG_PCI,
> > CONFIG_OF, etc.) rather than defining new ones specific to the driver.
> 
> Yes I do expect Hauke (CCed) to add BCMA bus front end support later.
> 
> I still think having the front end bus driver separated is cleaner and
> may be less troublesome for Hauke to add BCMA support in the future. But
> if you strongly favor having everything stuffed in one single file, I
> can make that change. Please let me know.

OK, just leave it as-is.

> >> +#define INVALID_ACCESS_OFFSET 0xffffffff
> >> +static u32 iproc_pcie_cfg_base(struct iproc_pcie *pcie, int busno,
> >> +			       unsigned int devfn, int where)
> >> +{
> >> +	int slot = PCI_SLOT(devfn);
> >> +	int fn = PCI_FUNC(devfn);
> >> +	u32 val;
> >> +
> > 
> > Would you mind adding a comment to the effect that
> > CFG_IND_ADDR_OFFSET/CFG_IND_DATA_OFFSET and
> > CFG_ADDR_OFFSET/CFG_DATA_OFFSET are protected by pci_lock?
> > 
> > They obviously need a mutex, and while I don't have any plans to
> > change it, I'm not completely 100% sure that pci_lock is the best
> > place for it.
> 
> Sorry I don't get what you want me to do here. Do you want me to add
> some comment to explain that the struct pci_ops read/write callbacks are
> already protected at the upper layer by the pci_lock spinlock and
> therefore no lock is required in this driver?

Nothing fancy; something like this that "git grep pci_lock" will find:

  /* addr/data must used atomically and are protected by pci_lock */

Bjorn

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: bhelgaas@google.com (Bjorn Helgaas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 3/4] pci: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc PCIe support
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:46:46 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150310224646.GC32204@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54FF6EAC.90603@broadcom.com>

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 03:22:36PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 3/10/2015 2:40 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > [+cc Rob, Yijing]
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 05:38:05PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
> >> This adds the support for Broadcom iProc PCIe controller
> >>
> >> pcie-iproc.c servers as the common core driver, and front-end bus
> >> interface needs to be added to support different bus interfaces
> >>
> >> pcie-iproc-pltfm.c contains the support for the platform bus interface
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbraden@broadcom.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/pci/host/Kconfig            |   17 ++
> >>  drivers/pci/host/Makefile           |    2 +
> >>  drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc-pltfm.c |  108 +++++++++++
> >>  drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c       |  351 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h       |   42 +++++
> >>  5 files changed, 520 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc-pltfm.c
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig b/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
> >> index 7b892a9..f4d9c90 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/Kconfig
> >> @@ -106,4 +106,21 @@ config PCI_VERSATILE
> >>  	bool "ARM Versatile PB PCI controller"
> >>  	depends on ARCH_VERSATILE
> >>  
> >> +config PCIE_IPROC
> >> +	tristate "Broadcom iProc PCIe controller"
> >> +	help
> >> +	  This enables the iProc PCIe core controller support for Broadcom's
> >> +	  iProc family of SoCs. An appropriate bus interface driver also needs
> >> +	  to be enabled
> >> +
> >> +config PCIE_IPROC_PLTFM
> >> +	tristate "Broadcom iProc PCIe platform bus driver"
> >> +	depends on ARCH_BCM_IPROC || COMPILE_TEST
> >> +	depends on OF
> >> +	select PCIE_IPROC
> >> +	default ARCH_BCM_IPROC
> >> +	help
> >> +	  Say Y here if you want to use the Broadcom iProc PCIe controller
> >> +	  through the generic platform bus interface
> > 
> > Do you anticipate additional front-end bus interfaces?  If not, and maybe
> > even if you do, you might squash everything into pcie-iproc.c.  Then you
> > only need one file (no .h file needed) and the package is a little
> > simpler.  I think it's pretty common to have multiple driver registration
> > methods in the same file (OF, PCI, ACPI, etc.)  And I think it's common to
> > have those methods guarded by the generic config symbol (CONFIG_PCI,
> > CONFIG_OF, etc.) rather than defining new ones specific to the driver.
> 
> Yes I do expect Hauke (CCed) to add BCMA bus front end support later.
> 
> I still think having the front end bus driver separated is cleaner and
> may be less troublesome for Hauke to add BCMA support in the future. But
> if you strongly favor having everything stuffed in one single file, I
> can make that change. Please let me know.

OK, just leave it as-is.

> >> +#define INVALID_ACCESS_OFFSET 0xffffffff
> >> +static u32 iproc_pcie_cfg_base(struct iproc_pcie *pcie, int busno,
> >> +			       unsigned int devfn, int where)
> >> +{
> >> +	int slot = PCI_SLOT(devfn);
> >> +	int fn = PCI_FUNC(devfn);
> >> +	u32 val;
> >> +
> > 
> > Would you mind adding a comment to the effect that
> > CFG_IND_ADDR_OFFSET/CFG_IND_DATA_OFFSET and
> > CFG_ADDR_OFFSET/CFG_DATA_OFFSET are protected by pci_lock?
> > 
> > They obviously need a mutex, and while I don't have any plans to
> > change it, I'm not completely 100% sure that pci_lock is the best
> > place for it.
> 
> Sorry I don't get what you want me to do here. Do you want me to add
> some comment to explain that the struct pci_ops read/write callbacks are
> already protected at the upper layer by the pci_lock spinlock and
> therefore no lock is required in this driver?

Nothing fancy; something like this that "git grep pci_lock" will find:

  /* addr/data must used atomically and are protected by pci_lock */

Bjorn

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-03-10 22:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-10  0:38 [PATCH v5 0/4] pci: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc PCIe support Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38 ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38 ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] PCI: Export symbols of PCI functions Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10 20:56   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-03-10 20:56     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-03-10 21:02     ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10 21:02       ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10 21:02       ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] pci: iProc: define iProc PCIe platform bus binding Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] pci: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc PCIe support Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10 21:40   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-03-10 21:40     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-03-10 22:22     ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10 22:22       ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10 22:22       ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10 22:39       ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-10 22:39         ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-10 22:46       ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2015-03-10 22:46         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-03-11  1:11     ` Yijing Wang
2015-03-11  1:11       ` Yijing Wang
2015-03-11  1:11       ` Yijing Wang
2015-03-10  0:38 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] ARM: dts: enable PCIe support for Cygnus Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui
2015-03-10  0:38   ` Ray Jui

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150310224646.GC32204@google.com \
    --to=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=anatol@google.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dtor@google.com \
    --cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=hauke@hauke-m.de \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pebolle@tiscali.nl \
    --cc=rjui@broadcom.com \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=sbranden@broadcom.com \
    --cc=wangyijing@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.