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

Rongrong Zou
2016-01-12T11:57:13Z

在 2016/1/12 19:27, liviu.dudau@arm.com 写道:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:05:29PM +0800, Rongrong Zou wrote:
>> 在 2016/1/12 18:14, liviu.dudau@arm.com 写道:
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 05:25:56PM +0800, Rongrong Zou wrote:
>>>> 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".
>
> Earlier, you said this ^
>
>>>> 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;
>>>> }
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>
>>> OK, looking at of_translate_one() comments it looks like a missing "ranges" property is
>>> only accepted on PowerPC. I suggest you have an empty "ranges" property in your isa
>>> parent node, that will signal to the OF parsing code that the mapping is 1:1. Then have
>>> the IPMI node use the reg = <0x0 0xe4 4>; property values instead of reg = <0x1 0xe4 4>;
>>
>> But in this condition, I still can't get the right resource type IORESOURCE_IO, I just get
>> the MMIO resource E4:E7. Please see the url at https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/5/199, the empty
>> ranges has been discussed.
>
> So, when you use an empty "ranges" of_get_address() doesn't return the right flags? What resource
> do you actually get, MMIO is not a valid value.

I'm sorry I did not describe clearly.
Without "ranges", of_get_address() will return with valid value, but of_address_to_resource()
will return with -EINVAL;

int of_address_to_resource(struct device_node *dev, int index,
struct resource *r)
{
...
/* flags can be get here, without ranges property reqired.
* if the reg = <0x0 0xe4 4>, I can get flag of IORESOURCE_MEM,
* if the reg = <0x1 0xe4 4>, I can get flag of IORESOURCE_IO,
*/
addrp = of_get_address(dev, index, &size, &flags);

if (addrp == NULL)
return -EINVAL;

/* Get optional "reg-names" property to add a name to a resource */
of_property_read_string_index(dev, "reg-names", index, &name);

/* If it is empty ranges, and the flag is IORESOURCE_MEM then the below __of_address_to_resource return with valid addr,
* if it is empty ranges, and the flag is IORESOURCE_IO then return with -EINVAL, because
* pci_address_to_pio() will be called when flag is IORESOURCE_IO.
* if the ranges is absent, then return with -EINVAL.
*/
return __of_address_to_resource(dev, addrp, size, flags, name, r);
}

I want to get resource with flag = IORESOURCE_IO, resource.start=0XE4, resource.size=0X4,

>
> Liviu
>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Rongrong
>>
>

--
Regards,
Rongrong