Devicetree
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Elder <elder@riscstar.com>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: robh@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs6490-rb3gen2: add endpoint buses
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:42:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f4af35d7-1380-43ce-b8f6-8a24efe3ddb2@riscstar.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260915182519.977DF1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org>

On 9/15/26 1:25 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [High] PCI endpoint dynamic ranges update fails due to static node definition
> - [Low] dtc warning: pci-ep-bus@4 unit-address lacks reg property
> --
> 
> commit 8f41aa3c7aef831e8b83dd47d6e93a9ac9228f4f
> Author: Alex Elder <elder@riscstar.com>
> 
> arm64: dts: qcom: qcs6490-rb3gen2: add endpoint buses

This Sashiko report mentions only things that were explicitly
ignored on the previous version, so I will take no action.

					-Alex

> 
> The TC9564 SoC incorporates a PCIe switch, which is connected via the second
> PCI segment (0001) on the RB3gen2 platform. The downstream port has an
> embedded PCIe endpoint that implements two PCIe functions, and this patch
> adds the devicetree nodes representing these buses.
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs6490-rb3gen2.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs6490-rb3gen2.dts
>> index 3bb5fca8e2b13..5b7f5292a8864 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs6490-rb3gen2.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs6490-rb3gen2.dts
>> @@ -955,11 +955,41 @@ pcie@3,0 {
>>   			bus-range = <0x5 0xff>;
>>   
>>   			dev@0,0 {
>> +				compatible = "pci1179,0220";
>>   				reg = <0x50000 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
>> +				#address-cells = <3>;
>> +				#size-cells = <2>;
>> +				/* Ranges will be updated dynamically */
>> +				ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0  0x83050000 0x0 0x0  0x0 0x4000>,
>> +					 <0x2 0x0 0x0  0x83050000 0x0 0x4000  0x0 0x80000>,
>> +					 <0x4 0x0 0x0  0x83050000 0x0 0x84000  0x0 0x200000>;
> 
> [Severity: High]
> Will these ranges actually be updated dynamically during boot?
> 
> The commit message states the ranges property will be updated dynamically.
> However, the PCI quirk calls of_pci_make_dev_node() which has an early return
> if the device node is already statically defined in the device tree:
> 
>      if (pci_device_to_OF_node(pdev))
>          return;
> 
> Since dev@0,0 is defined here in the devicetree, it seems they are linked
> during initial PCI enumeration, causing the update to be skipped entirely.
> Furthermore, even if the early return was bypassed, the update uses
> __of_add_property(), which rejects existing properties with -EEXIST.
> 
> Could this leave devices on the pci-ep-bus with invalid MMIO addresses mapped
> to unassigned PCI regions?
> 
>> +
>> +				pci-ep-bus@4 {
>> +					compatible = "simple-bus";
>> +					#address-cells = <1>;
>> +					#size-cells = <1>;
>> +					/* Map 0x0-0x1fffff to BAR 4 */
>> +					ranges = <0x0  0x4 0x0 0x0  0x200000>;
>> +				};
> 
> [Severity: Low]
> Does this unit address trigger a devicetree compiler warning?
> 
> The pci-ep-bus@4 node is assigned a unit address of @4, but it lacks a
> matching reg property. According to the Devicetree specification, if a node
> uses a unit address, it must have a matching reg property.
> 
> For simple buses without a reg property, the unit address must match the
> first child address in the ranges property, which is 0x0 here, rather than 4.
> 
>>   			};
>>   
>>   			dev@0,1 {
>> +				compatible = "pci1179,0220";
>>   				reg = <0x50100 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
>> +				#address-cells = <3>;
>> +				#size-cells = <2>;
>> +				/* Ranges will be updated dynamically */
>> +				ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x0  0x83050100 0x0 0x0  0x0 0x4000>,
>> +					 <0x2 0x0 0x0  0x83050100 0x0 0x4000  0x0 0x80000>,
>> +					 <0x4 0x0 0x0  0x83050100 0x0 0x84000  0x0 0x200000>;
> 
> [Severity: High]
> As with dev@0,0 above, it appears this node might also be skipped by
> of_pci_make_dev_node() because it is statically defined. Will this prevent
> the ranges property from being dynamically updated for this second endpoint?
> 
>> +
>> +				pci-ep-bus@4 {
>> +					compatible = "simple-bus";
>> +					#address-cells = <1>;
>> +					#size-cells = <1>;
>> +					/* Map 0x0-0x1fffff to BAR 4 */
>> +					ranges = <0x0  0x4 0x0 0x0  0x200000>;
>> +				};
> 
> [Severity: Low]
> Does this second pci-ep-bus@4 node also trigger a compiler warning for
> missing a reg property while having a unit address?
> 
>>   			};
>>   		};
>>   	};
> 


      reply	other threads:[~2026-09-15 18:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-15 18:09 [PATCH v3 0/3] PCI: introduce TC9564 misc driver Alex Elder
2026-09-15 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: misc: introduce pci1179,0220.yaml Alex Elder
2026-09-15 18:16   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-15 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] misc: tc9564: introduce base PCI driver Alex Elder
2026-09-15 18:22   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-15 18:42     ` Alex Elder
2026-09-15 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs6490-rb3gen2: add endpoint buses Alex Elder
2026-09-15 18:25   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-15 18:42     ` Alex Elder [this message]

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=f4af35d7-1380-43ce-b8f6-8a24efe3ddb2@riscstar.com \
    --to=elder@riscstar.com \
    --cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /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