From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 15:58:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3] pcie: Add Xilinx PCIe Host Bridge IP driver In-Reply-To: <20140507145327.GB2563@arm.com> (Will Deacon's message of "Wed, 7 May 2014 15:53:27 +0100") References: <1397561911-11647-1-git-send-email-sthokal@xilinx.com> <201404301734.14478.arnd@arndb.de> <4288313.uDFYZQS3W7@wuerfel> <20140507145327.GB2563@arm.com> Message-ID: <87d2fpoct3.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 07 2014 at 3:53:27 pm BST, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for CC'ing me, Arnd. > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:35:48PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Wednesday 07 May 2014 17:21:13 Srikanth Thokala wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > > Would it be possible to split the config space access out into >> > > a separate file? It would be nice to share that with the generic >> > > ECAM driver that Will Deacon has sent. >> > >> > Yes, it should be possible. Is it ok, if I work on top of this driver? >> >> Do you mean as a follow-on patch? My feeling is that since we are trying >> to merge both for 3.16, it would be good to get it done right away if >> it doesn't cause too much extra work. > > Do you mean something as simple as a helper for base + offset ECAM > addressing, or something more involved that handles the mapping as well? The > latter would need some alignment on sys->private_data, I think. > > Srikanth: I'll CC you on the next version of my patches (I'll send them > now). > >> > > As a general comment about the MSI implementation, I wonder if >> > > this is actually >> > > generic enough to be shared with other host controllers. It could be moved >> > > into a separate file like the config space access in that case. >> > >> > I feel the MSI implementation is not generic by looking into the other >> > host controllers, >> > it is more specific to the hardware. Correct me, if am wrong. >> >> The other host controllers are certainly incompatible, but this one looks >> like it could be used on other controllers easily. >> >> Splitting it out would also make it easier to use another MSI implementation >> like the one in the GIC. > > Actually, MarcZ and I already have my driver working with GICv3 + MSI. The > code basically amounts to implementing {add,remove}_bus callbacks to set > the msi_chip for the pci_bus, based on what we got out of the devicetree. > I don't think we needed anything else... Marc? No, that's it, really. I use the "msi-parent" property to find the msi_chip, which should have been registered as a "msi-controller". M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.