From: slash.tmp@free.fr (Mason)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] PCI: Add tango PCIe host bridge support
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:53:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <96da696c-141a-3e8d-1fb7-2c024a295f58@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01516ad9-e187-4bac-7c65-a7a90c576ce2@arm.com>
On 29/03/2017 14:19, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 29/03/17 12:34, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> + /*
>> + * QUIRK #3
>> + * Unfortunately, config and mem spaces are muxed.
>> + * Linux does not support such a setting, since drivers are free
>> + * to access mem space directly, at any time.
>> + * Therefore, we can only PRAY that config and mem space accesses
>> + * NEVER occur concurrently.
>> + */
>
> What about David's suggestion of using an IPI for safe mutual exclusion?
I was left with the impression that this wouldn't solve the problem.
If a mem space access is "in flight" on core0 when core1 starts a
config space access, an IPI will not prevent breakage.
Did I misunderstand?
For my education, what is the API to send an IPI?
And the API to handle an IPI?
>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "sigma,smp8759-pcie"))
>> + smp8759_init(pcie, base);
>
> ...then retrieve it with of_device_get_match_data() here. No need to
> reinvent the wheel (or have to worry about the ordering of multiple
> compatibles once rev. n+1 comes around).
I actually asked about this on IRC. The consensus was "use what
best fits your use case". I need to do some processing based on
the revision, so I thought
if (chip_x)
do_chip_x_init()
was a good way to express my intent. Did I misunderstand?
For example, the init function for rev2 currently looks like this:
static void rev2_init(struct tango_pcie *pcie, void __iomem *base)
{
void __iomem *misc_irq = base + 0x40;
void __iomem *doorbell = base + 0x8c;
pcie->mux = base + 0x2c;
pcie->msi_status = base + 0x4c;
pcie->msi_mask = base + 0x6c;
pcie->msi_doorbell = 0x80000000;
writel(lower_32_bits(pcie->msi_doorbell), doorbell + 0);
writel(upper_32_bits(pcie->msi_doorbell), doorbell + 4);
/* Enable legacy PCI interrupts */
writel(BIT(15), misc_irq);
writel(0xf << 4, misc_irq + 4);
}
>> +#define VENDOR_SIGMA 0x1105
>
> Should this not be in include/linux/pci_ids.h?
Doh! Very likely. Thanks.
Regards.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-29 12:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-29 11:11 [PATCH v3 0/2] Tango PCIe controller support Marc Gonzalez
2017-03-29 11:29 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] PCI: Add tango MSI " Marc Gonzalez
2017-03-29 12:29 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-03-29 13:16 ` Mason
2017-03-29 15:50 ` Mason
2017-03-29 11:34 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] PCI: Add tango PCIe host bridge support Marc Gonzalez
2017-03-29 12:19 ` Robin Murphy
2017-03-29 12:53 ` Mason [this message]
2017-03-29 14:33 ` Robin Murphy
2017-03-29 14:38 ` David Laight
2017-03-30 12:09 ` kbuild test robot
2017-04-03 14:51 ` Rob Herring
2017-04-09 13:09 ` Mason
2017-03-30 20:56 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Tango PCIe controller support Mason
2017-03-31 22:05 ` Mason
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=96da696c-141a-3e8d-1fb7-2c024a295f58@free.fr \
--to=slash.tmp@free.fr \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox