Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Attach DT nodes to existing PCI devices

Lizhi Hou
2023-12-05T18:54:00Z

On 12/4/23 15:03, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:30 AM Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 07:59:09 -0600
>> Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/bus.c b/drivers/pci/bus.c
>>>>> index 9c2137dae429..46b252bbe500 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/bus.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/bus.c
>>>>> @@ -342,8 +342,6 @@ void pci_bus_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>> */
>>>>> pcibios_bus_add_device(dev);
>>>>> pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_final, dev);
>>>>> - if (pci_is_bridge(dev))
>>>>> - of_pci_make_dev_node(dev);
>>>>> pci_create_sysfs_dev_files(dev);
>>>>> pci_proc_attach_device(dev);
>>>>> pci_bridge_d3_update(dev);
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/of.c b/drivers/pci/of.c
>>>>> index 51e3dd0ea5ab..e15eaf0127fc 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/of.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/of.c
>>>>> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ int pci_set_of_node(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> node = of_pci_find_child_device(dev->bus->dev.of_node, dev->devfn);
>>>>> + if (!node && pci_is_bridge(dev))
>>>>> + of_pci_make_dev_node(dev);
>>>>> if (!node)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>> Maybe it is too early.
>>>> of_pci_make_dev_node() creates a node and fills some properties based on
>>>> some already set values available in the PCI device such as its struct resource
>>>> values.
>>>> We need to have some values set by the PCI infra in order to create our DT node
>>>> with correct values.
>>> Indeed, that's probably the issue I'm having. In that case,
>>> DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER should work. That's later, but still before
>>> device_add().
>>>
>>> I think modifying sysfs after device_add() is going to race with
>>> userspace. Userspace is notified of a new device, and then the of_node
>>> link may or may not be there when it reads sysfs. Also, not sure if
>>> we'll need DT modaliases with PCI devices, but they won't work if the
>>> DT node is not set before device_add().
>> Ok, we can try using DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER.
>> On your side, is moving from DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY to DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER
>> fix your QEMU unittest ?
> No...
>
> And testing the bridge part crashes. That's because there's a
> dependency on the bridge->subordinate to write out bus-range and
> interrupt-map. I think the fix there is we should just not write those
> properties. The bus range isn't needed because the kernel does its own
> assignments. For interrupt-map, it is only needed if "interrupts" is
Without 'bus-range', dtc will output a warning while compiling the
generated node.
> present in the child devices. If not present, then the standard PCI
> swizzling is used. Alternatively, I think the interrupt mapping could
> be simplified to just implement the standard swizzling at each level
> which isn't dependent on any of the devices on the bus. I gave that a
> go where each interrupt-map just points to the parent bridge, but ran
> into an issue that the bridge nodes don't have a phandle. That should
> be fixable, but I'd rather go with the first option. I suppose that

Do you mean it might be something similar with I posted in V12?

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/97ae2eda-f712-0b83-dc90-0f29edd5db8b@amd.com/

Thanks,

Lizhi

> depends on how the interrupts downstream of the PCI device need to get
> resolved. It could be that the PCI device serves as the interrupt
> controller and can resolve the parent interrupt on its own (which may
> be needed for ACPI host anyways).
>
>> We have to note that between the pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_header, dev) call
>> and the device_add() call, the call to pci_set_msi_domain() is present.
>> MSIs are not supported currently but in the future ...
> MSI's aren't ever described in PCI nodes. Only the host bridge. So I
> don't think we should have problems there.
>
>> Related to DT modaliases, I don't think they are needed.
>> All drivers related to PCI device should be declared as pci_driver.
>> Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the core PCI will load the correct
>> module without any DT modalias.
> Yes, you are probably right.
>
> Rob