From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Stuebner Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: fix PCIe domain number for rk3399 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:51:13 +0100 Message-ID: <165580299.rddJx4TLPp@phil> References: <1489977480-8785-1-git-send-email-shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1489977480-8785-1-git-send-email-shawn.lin-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-rockchip" Errors-To: linux-rockchip-bounces+glpar-linux-rockchip=m.gmane.org-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org To: Shawn Lin Cc: linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Brian Norris List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 20. M=E4rz 2017, 10:38:00 CET schrieb Shawn Lin: > It's suggested to fix the domain number for all PCIe > host bridges or not set it at all. However, if we don't > fix it, the domain number will keep increasing ever when > doing unbind/bind test, which makes the bus tree of lspci > introduce pointless domain hierarchy. More investigation shows > the domain number allocater of PCI doesn't consider the conflict > of domain number if we have more than one PCIe port belonging to > different domains. So once unbinding/binding one of them and keep > others would going to overflow the domain number so that finally > it will share the same domain as others, but actually it shouldn't. > We should fix the domain number for PCIe or invent new indexing > ID mechanisms. However it isn't worth inventing new indexing ID > mechanisms personlly, Just look at how other Root Complex drivers > did, for instance, broadcom and qualcomm, it seems fixing the domain > number was more popular. So this patch gonna fix the domain number > of PCIe for rk3399. > = > Cc: Brian Norris > Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin applied for 4.12 with Brian's tags. Thanks Heiko