Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: of: Downgrade error message on missing of_root node

Bjorn Helgaas
2025-11-06T17:50:18Z

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 06:27:08PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 16:21:47 +0100
> Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote:
> > On 13:18 Thu 06 Nov , Herve Codina wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Nov 2025 12:04:07 +0100
> > > Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > On 18:23 Wed 05 Nov , Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 07:33:40PM +0100, Andrea della Porta wrote:
Patch at https://lore.kernel.org/r/955bc7a9b78678fad4b705c428e8b45aeb0cbf3c.1762367117.git.andrea.porta@suse.com,
added back for reference:

diff --git a/drivers/pci/of.c b/drivers/pci/of.c
index 3579265f1198..872c36b195e3 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/of.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/of.c
@@ -775,7 +775,7 @@ void of_pci_make_host_bridge_node(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)

/* Check if there is a DT root node to attach the created node */
if (!of_root) {
- pr_err("of_root node is NULL, cannot create PCI host bridge node\n");
+ pr_info("Missing DeviceTree, cannot create PCI host bridge node\n");
return;
}

> > > > > > When CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES is enabled, an error
> > > > > > message is generated if no 'of_root' node is defined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On DT-based systems, this cannot happen as a root DT node
> > > > > > is always present. On ACPI-based systems, this is not a
> > > > > > true error because a DT is not used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Downgrade the pr_err() to pr_info() and reword the message
> > > > > > text to be less context specific.
> > > > >
> > > > > of_pci_make_host_bridge_node() is called in the very generic
> > > > > pci_register_host_bridge() path. Does that mean every boot
> > > > > of a kernel with CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES on a non-DT
> > > > > system will see this message?
> > > >
> > > > This is the case, indeed. That's why downgrading to info seems
> > > > sensible.
> > > >
> > > > > This message seems like something that will generate user
> > > > > questions. Or is this really an error, and we were supposed
> > > > > to have created of_root somewhere but it failed? If so, I
> > > > > would expect a message where the of_root creation failed.

I think we should just remove the message completely. I don't want
users to enable CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES out of curiosity or
willingness to test, and then ask about this message.

"You can avoid the message by also enabling CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE"
is not a very satisfactory answer.

A message at the point of *needing* this, i.e., when loading an
overlay fails for lack of this dynamic DT, is fine.

> > > > Not really an error per se: on ACPI system we usually don't
> > > > have DT, so this message just warns you that there will be no
> > > > pci nodes created on it. Which, again, should be of no
> > > > importance on ACPI.
> > >
> > > I my last understanding, all architecture (even x86) have the DT
> > > root node set. This node is empty on architectures that don't
> > > use DT to describe hardware at boot (ACPI for instance).
> >
> > This does not seem to be the case for all arch, see below.
> >
> > > This DT node is needed for PCI board that will be described by a
> > > DT overlay. LAN966x for instance.
> > >
> > > On v6.18-rc1 kernel, I successfully used my LAN966x board on a
> > > ACPI system. This means that of_root DT node was present on my
> > > system.
> > >
> > > > The only scenario in which this message is actually an error
> > > > would be on ACPI system that use DT as a complement to make
> > > > runtime overlay work,
> > >
> > > It is an error also if you use a PCI board that needs PCI DT
> > > nodes (CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES) Lan966x for instance.
> >
> > Yes, I was referring exactly to that.
> >
> > > > i.e. the overlay approach for RP1 on RPi5 with ACPI fw. AFAIK
> > > > this fw is more a PoC that something really widespread and
> > > > currntly the overlay approach is in stand-by anyway (meaning
> > > > no one will use it unless some major changes will be made to
> > > > make it work). But there may be other situations in which this
> > > > scenario could arise, I'm thinking about Bootlin's LAN966x
> > > > driver which also uses runtime overlay to describe thw hw. On
> > > > ACPI system the root DT node is not created because
> > > > unflatten_device_tree() is not called.
> > >
> > > I am not so sure. My LAN966x board is working on a x86 ACPI
> > > system.
> >
> > Indeed it depends on the architecture. On x86 an empty DT node is
> > created, provided you have CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE defined (which
> > I guess you have, even if it's not in default config).
>
> Indeed, I have CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE = y.
>
> > On arm64, ACPI and DT are mutually exclusive, unless the DT is
> > basically empty (i.e. only root node and chosen node). The DT root
> > node is not automatically created if not provided at boot, though.
> > This reinforces my idea of providing the only root node DT on arm
> > as well, but I'm not entirely sure about possible side effects.
>
> Isn't it possible to have the same kind of operations on ARM64 ACPI
> and on x86?
>
> In order to have CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES working on ACPI, we
> need a DT node, even empty.
>
> ARM64 ACPI without an empty DT node means that no PCI boards using a
> DT description will work on this system.