From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: Koichiro Den <den@valinux.co.jp>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com,
yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org,
kwilczynski@kernel.org, mani@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org,
bhelgaas@google.com, geert+renesas@glider.be,
magnus.damm@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: rcar-gen4-ep: Program Resizable BARs and drop 1MiB BAR limit
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 16:33:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYtPzCDH7ZEucnjH@ryzen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5kxesjz73i7gpaffna56buhqwmmqrukuyyg4lnlrmbylmmd2qy@756mchjaouz3>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:31:21AM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 11:25:16AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 04:22:17PM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote:
> > > R-Car Gen4 (S4) exposes BAR0 and BAR2 as Resizable BARs. Program them
> > > accordingly by using dw_pcie_ep_set_bar_resizable() instead of the
> > > programmable BAR path.
> > >
> > > Before this change the driver left the Resizable BAR capability
> > > untouched and only wrote the BAR register, so the RC enumerated BAR0/2
> > > as 1 MiB regardless of the size requested by the endpoint function. For
> > > example, configuring a 2 MiB window for pci-epf-vntb still produced:
> > >
> > > ntb_hw_epf 0000:01:00.0: \
> > > Size:0x0000000000200000 is greater than the MW size 0x0000000000100000
> > >
> > > Program the Resizable BAR control so the RC sees the requested size and
> > > ntb_transport can use larger memory windows.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Koichiro Den <den@valinux.co.jp>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c | 2 ++
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c
> > > index 80778917d2dd..dbad741b8286 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c
> > > @@ -421,7 +421,9 @@ static int rcar_gen4_pcie_ep_raise_irq(struct dw_pcie_ep *ep, u8 func_no,
> > >
> > > static const struct pci_epc_features rcar_gen4_pcie_epc_features = {
> > > .msi_capable = true,
> > > + .bar[BAR_0] = { .type = BAR_RESIZABLE, },
> > > .bar[BAR_1] = { .type = BAR_RESERVED, },
> > > + .bar[BAR_2] = { .type = BAR_RESIZABLE, },
> > > .bar[BAR_3] = { .type = BAR_RESERVED, },
> > > .bar[BAR_4] = { .type = BAR_FIXED, .fixed_size = 256 },
> > > .bar[BAR_5] = { .type = BAR_RESERVED, },
> > > --
> > > 2.48.1
> > >
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
> >
> > Considering that this patch has not been picked up yet,
> > perhaps resend it using [PATCH RESEND].
>
> Thanks for the Reviewed-by. As almost four months have passed, in hindsight the
> commit message sounds a bit too awkward now..
> I'd like to update it to at least remove ntb-specific wording and make it more
> compact and concise, like this:
>
> PCI: dwc: rcar-gen4-ep: Mark BAR0 and BAR2 as Resizable BARs
>
> R-Car Gen4 (S4) implements the PCIe Resizable BAR capability for BAR0 and
> BAR2. Advertise them as BAR_RESIZABLE so EPF-requested BAR sizes are
> reflected to the host.
>
> If this looks good to you, would it be okay for me to keep the Reviewed-by
> tag? There will be no code changes, only this commit message rewording in
> the RESEND.
Looks good to me, and you can keep the R-b tag, but if you update the
commit message, then you should probably send it as V2.
Kind regards,
Niklas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-10 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-23 7:22 [PATCH] PCI: dwc: rcar-gen4-ep: Program Resizable BARs and drop 1MiB BAR limit Koichiro Den
2026-02-10 10:25 ` Niklas Cassel
2026-02-10 15:31 ` Koichiro Den
2026-02-10 15:33 ` Niklas Cassel [this message]
2026-02-10 15:56 ` Koichiro Den
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=aYtPzCDH7ZEucnjH@ryzen \
--to=cassel@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=den@valinux.co.jp \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=kwilczynski@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=mani@kernel.org \
--cc=marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.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