Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] ARM64 LPC: update binding doc

Rongrong Zou
2016-01-12T09:27:48Z

在 2016/1/12 17:07, liviu.dudau@arm.com 写道:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:39:36AM +0800, Rongrong Zou wrote:
>> On 2016/1/12 0:14, liviu.dudau@arm.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:13:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 03 January 2016 20:24:14 Rongrong Zou wrote:
>>>>> 在 2015/12/31 23:00, Rongrong Zou 写道:
>>>>>> 2015-12-31 22:40 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de <mailto:arnd@arndb.de>>:
>>>>>> > On Thursday 31 December 2015 22:12:19 Rongrong Zou wrote:
>>>>>> > > 在 2015/12/30 17:06, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
>>>>>> > > > On Tuesday 29 December 2015 21:33:52 Rongrong Zou wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The DT sample above looks good in principle. I believe what you are missing
>>>>>> > here is code in your driver to scan the child nodes to create the platform
>>>>>> > devices. of_bus_isa_translate() should work with your definition here
>>>>>> > and create the correct IORESOURCE_IO resources. You don't have any MMIO
>>>>>> > resources, so the absence of a ranges property is ok. Maybe all you
>>>>>> > are missing is a call to of_platform_populate() or of_platform_bus_probe()?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right. thanks, i'll try on test board . if i get the correct result , the new patch
>>>>>> will be sent later. By the way, it's my another email account use when i at home.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried, and there need some additional changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> isa@a01b0000 {
>>>>>
>>>>> /*the node name should start with "isa", because of below definition
>>>>> * static int of_bus_isa_match(struct device_node *np)
>>>>> * {
>>>>> * return !strcmp(np->name, "isa");
>>>>> * }
>>>>
>>>> Looks good. It would be nicer to match on device_type than on name,
>>>> but this is ancient code and it's probably best not to touch it
>>>> so we don't accidentally break some old SPARC or PPC system.
>>>>
>>>>> */
>>>>> compatible = "low-pin-count";
>>>>> device_type = "isa";
>>>>> #address-cells = <2>;
>>>>> #size-cells = <1>;
>>>>> reg = <0x0 0xa01b0000 0x0 0x10000>;
>>>>> ranges = <0x1 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x1000>;
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * ranges is required, then i can get the IORESOURCE_IO <0xe4,4> from "reg = <0x1, 0x000000e4, 4>".
>>>>> *
>>>>> */
>>>>> ipmi_0:ipmi@000000e4{
>>>>> device_type = "ipmi";
>>>>> compatible = "ipmi-bt";
>>>>> reg = <0x1 0x000000e4 0x4>;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This looks wrong: the property above says that the I/O port range is
>>>> translated to MMIO address 0x00000000 to 0x00010000, which is not
>>>> true on your hardware. I think this needs to be changed in the code
>>>> so the ranges property is not required for I/O ports.
>>>>
>>>>> drivers\of\address.c
>>>>> static int __of_address_to_resource(struct device_node *dev,
>>>>> const __be32 *addrp, u64 size, unsigned int flags,
>>>>> const char *name, struct resource *r)
>>>>> {
>>>>> u64 taddr;
>>>>>
>>>>> if ((flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)) == 0)
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> taddr = of_translate_address(dev, addrp);
>>>>> if (taddr == OF_BAD_ADDR)
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> memset(r, 0, sizeof(struct resource));
>>>>> if (flags & IORESOURCE_IO) {
>>>>> unsigned long port;
>>>>>
>>>>> /*****************************************************************/
>>>>> /*legacy port(< 0x1000) is reserved, and need no translation here*/
>>>>> /*****************************************************************/
>>>>> if(taddr + size < PCIBIOS_MIN_IO){
>>>>> r->start = taddr;
>>>>> r->end = taddr + size - 1;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I don't like having a special case based on the address here,
>>>> the same kind of hack might be needed for PCI I/O spaces in
>>>> hardware that uses an indirect method like your LPC bus
>>>> does, and the code above will not work on any LPC implementation
>>>> that correctly multiplexes its I/O ports with the first PCI domain.
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be better to avoid translating the port into
>>>> a physical address to start with just to translate it back into
>>>> a port number, what we need instead is the offset between the
>>>> bus specific port number and the linux port number. I've added
>>>> Liviu to Cc, he wrote this code originally and may have some idea
>>>> of how we could do that.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>
>> Hi Liviu,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing this.
>>
>>>
>>> Getting back to work after a longer holiday, my brain might not be running
>>> at full speed here, so I'm trying to clarify things a bit here.
>>>
>>> It looks to me like Rongrong is trying to trap the inb()/outb() calls that he
>>> added to arm64 by patch 1/3 and redirect those operations to the memory
>>> mapped LPC driver. I think the whole redirection and registration of inb/outb
>>> ops can be made cleaner, so that the general concept resembles the DMA ops
>>> registration? (I have this mental picture that what Rongrong is trying to do
>>> is similar to what a DMA engine does, except this is slowing down things to
>>> byte level). If that is done properly in the parent node, then we should not
>>> care what the PCIBIOS_MIN_IO value is as the inb()/outb() calls will always
>>> go through the redirection for the children.
>>>
>>> As for the ranges property: does he wants the ipmi-bt driver to see in the
>>> reg property the legacy ISA I/O ports values or the CPU addresses? If the former,
>>> then I agree that the range property should not be required, but also the
>>> reg values need to be changed (drop the top bit). If the later, then the
>>> ranges property is required to do the proper translation.
>>
>> The former, thanks.
>>
>>>
>>> Rongrong, removing the ranges property and with a reg = <0xe4 0x4> property
>>> in the ipmi-bt node, what IO_RESOURCE type resources do you get back from
>>> the of_address_to_resource() translation?
>>
>> I want to get IORESOURCE_IO type resource, but if the parent node drop the
>> "rangs" property, the of_address_to_resource() translation will return with -EINVAL.
>
> Have you tracked what part of the code is sensitive to the presence of "ranges"
> property? Does of_get_address() call returns the IO_RESOURCE flag set without "ranges"?
>

Yes, IO_RESOURCE flag can be get without "ranges".
I tracked the code, it is at of_translate_one(), Below is the calling infomation.

of_address_to_resource-> __of_address_to_resource ->of_translate_address->
__of_translate_address(dev, in_addr, "ranges")->of_translate_one()

static int of_translate_one(struct device_node *parent, struct of_bus *bus,
struct of_bus *pbus, __be32 *addr,
int na, int ns, int pna, const char *rprop)
{
const __be32 *ranges;
unsigned int rlen;
int rone;
u64 offset = OF_BAD_ADDR;

ranges = of_get_property(parent, rprop, &rlen);
if (ranges == NULL && !of_empty_ranges_quirk(parent)) {
pr_debug("OF: no ranges; cannot translate\n");
return 1;
}
...
}

> Best regards,
> Liviu
>
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Liviu
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arnd
>>>>
>>>
>> Regards,
>> Rongrong
>>
>
--
Regards,
Rongrong