linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>,
	Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@renesas.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ARM/ARM64 PCI_PROBE_ONLY platforms
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:13:04 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <569FB210.9090605@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160120160427.GD13437@red-moon>

On 1/20/2016 11:04 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I noticed that:
> 
> 79953dd22c1d ("PCI: rcar: Remove dependency on ARM-specific struct hw_pci")
> cbce7900598c ("PCI: designware: Make driver arch-agnostic")
> 
> added code in the respective host controller drivers to size bridges
> and assign resources only if the PCI_PROBE_ONLY flag is clear, which makes
> me wonder if there exists PCI_PROBE_ONLY set-ups for the respective
> host controllers:
> 
> - On ARM PCI_PROBE_ONLY can be set-up only via the command line or
>   by DT (but the host controllers drivers have to check the DT and
>   set it - see of_pci_check_probe_only()
> 
>   in drivers/pci/host/pci-host-generic.c
> 
>   neither designware nor rcar calls that function and I do not see
>   any dts file with that property). Given that I can't see a way
>   to set up PCI_PROBE_ONLY other than the command line on designware
>   or rcar I assume the PCI_PROBE_ONLY set-ups have been tested by
>   forcing it through command line parameter
> 
> - On ARM64 PCI_PROBE_ONLY can *only* be set via DT, so see above
> 
> We want to get rid of PCI_PROBE_ONLY on ARM/ARM64:

For platforms that does not have UEFI BIOS, it makes sense to remove the probe only
option as the firmware is not doing anything.

For server like arm64 platforms, the behavior should be identical to x86 world. The UEFI
BIOS sets up the resources, kernel uses the resources.

Can we set this flag all the time for ACPI builds instead?

What's so special about arm64 that we can't do probe only builds and x86 can do?

> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545671/
> 
> so unless you really have *existing* set-ups that require it, please
> remove the respective checks from the host controller drivers, this is
> becoming a serious issue, because either:
> 
> - we claim resources if and only if PCI_PROBE_ONLY is set
> 
> Either like this (to be done for every host controllers and ARM
> bios32):
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545670/
> 
> or in core ARM/ARM64 code - eg pcibios_fixup_bus() - (to avoid adding a
> resource claiming call in ALL PCI host controllers)
> 
> - or we *always* carry out resource claiming regardless of PCI_PROBE_ONLY
>   (but on ARM we can't really do that since PCI FW set-up on most of the
>   platforms is not present)
> 
> On PCI_PROBE_ONLY systems resources claiming is mandatory if we want
> to get rid of arches workarounds:

I'm hoping to see x86 like behavior on ARM64 without any gotchas as there is nothing
special about CPU type when it comes to PCI.

> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/545671/
> 
> Comments very appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-20 16:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-20 16:04 [RFC] ARM/ARM64 PCI_PROBE_ONLY platforms Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-20 16:13 ` Sinan Kaya [this message]
2016-01-20 18:10   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-20 18:15     ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-29 23:26       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-22 16:28     ` Phil Edworthy
2016-01-25 17:51       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-28 17:27       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-29 12:02         ` Gabriele Paoloni
2016-01-29  6:32       ` Pratyush Anand
2016-01-29 23:25     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-02-01 16:28       ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-01 21:19         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-29 23:06   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-30  0:14     ` Sinan Kaya
2016-01-30 13:30       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-30 17:51         ` Okaya
2016-02-01 15:25         ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-01 21:12           ` Bjorn Helgaas

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=569FB210.9090605@codeaurora.org \
    --to=okaya@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=phil.edworthy@renesas.com \
    --cc=wangzhou1@hisilicon.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).