From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Message-ID: <1517891471.20869.6.camel@mtkswgap22> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of_pci_irq: add a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing From: Ryder Lee To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 12:31:11 +0800 In-Reply-To: <1517889903.2312.151.camel@kernel.crashing.org> References: <31c765c53e85e41bfc001d110d69e46c9967f4e7.1516961656.git.ryder.lee@mediatek.com> <1517563970.24622.9.camel@mtkswgap22> <1517866584.2312.140.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <1517884738.16010.27.camel@mtkswgap22> <1517889903.2312.151.camel@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Arnd Bergmann , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Frank Rowand , "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+bjorn=helgaas.com@lists.infradead.org List-ID: On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 15:05 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 10:38 +0800, Ryder Lee wrote: > > > > I think the code should look at the bridge address <0x0800 ...> we list > > in bindings for resolving interrupts in this case, but it seems like it > > use the 'pdev->defvn << 8' which is not really we want and will lead to > > mismatch. > > > > interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>; > > interrupt-map = <0x0000 0 0 1 ...>, > > <0x0000 0 0 2 ...>, > > <0x0000 0 0 3 ...>, > > <0x0000 0 0 4 ...>, > > > > 0x0800 0 0 1 ...>, > > 0x0800 0 0 2 ...>, > > 0x0800 0 0 3 ...>, > > 0x0800 0 0 4 ...>; > > ... > > pcie@1,0 { > > reg = <0x0800 0 0 0 0>; > > ... > > }; > > > > > > Or, alternatively, we could add a interrupt-map property in both child > > and root node to solve this. The below example is my original version as > > I don't want to change that function either. > > The code looks at devfn because it's meant to work for PCI including > when the devices dont have a device node in the DT. > > What I'm trying to figure out is what is it that your parent and > children are representing here. Which is/are the root complex ? This is a single root complex with 2 root port (children in DT). > What is the actual topology as visible on the PCIe bus (is lspci output > basically) and how does that map to your representation ? # lspci 00:00.0 Class 0604: 14c3:0801 //1st slot - pcie@0,0 00:01.0 Class 0604: 14c3:0801 //2nd slot - pcie@1,0 01:00.0 Class 0280: 14c3:7603 //A device which is connected to 1st slot 02:00.0 Class 0200: 8086:1521 //A 4 func device which is connected to 2nd slot 02:00.1 Class 0200: 8086:1521 02:00.2 Class 0200: 8086:1521 02:00.3 Class 0200: 8086:1521 > _______________________________________________ > Linux-mediatek mailing list > Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel