Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: Resources outside their window must set IORESOURCE_UNSET

Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-10-06T10:14:39Z

Hi Ilpo,

On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 16:58, Ilpo Järvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2025, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 18:59, Ilpo Järvinen
> > <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2025, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 16:54, Ilpo Järvinen
> > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2025, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2025 at 15:06, Ilpo Järvinen
> > > > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Oct 2025, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 18:32, Ilpo Järvinen
> > > > > > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2025, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Sept 2025 at 04:40, Ilpo Järvinen
> > > > > > > > > > <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > PNP resources are checked for conflicts with the other resource in the
> > > > > > > > > > > system by quirk_system_pci_resources() that walks through all PCI
> > > > > > > > > > > resources. quirk_system_pci_resources() correctly filters out resource
> > > > > > > > > > > with IORESOURCE_UNSET.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Resources that do not reside within their bridge window, however, are
> > > > > > > > > > > not properly initialized with IORESOURCE_UNSET resulting in bogus
> > > > > > > > > > > conflicts detected in quirk_system_pci_resources():
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:02.0: VF BAR 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x1fffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:02.0: VF BAR 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xdfffffff 64bit pref]: contains BAR 2 for 7 VFs
> > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:03:00.0: VF BAR 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x1ffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:03:00.0: VF BAR 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]: contains BAR 2 for 31 VFs
> > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:04: disabling [mem 0xfc000000-0xfc00ffff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xc0000000-0xcfffffff] because it overlaps 0000:00:02.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0xdfffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xfedc0000-0xfedc7fff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xfeda0000-0xfeda0fff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xfeda1000-0xfeda1fff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xc0000000-0xcfffffff disabled] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xfed20000-0xfed7ffff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xfed90000-0xfed93fff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xfed45000-0xfed8ffff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > > pnp 00:05: disabling [mem 0xfee00000-0xfeefffff] because it overlaps 0000:03:00.0 BAR 9 [mem 0x00000000-0x3dffffffff 64bit pref]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mark resources that are not contained within their bridge window with
> > > > > > > > > > > IORESOURCE_UNSET in __pci_read_base() which resolves the false
> > > > > > > > > > > positives for the overlap check in quirk_system_pci_resources().
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: f7834c092c42 ("PNP: Don't check for overlaps with unassigned PCI BARs")
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 06b77d5647a4d6a7 ("PCI:
> > > > > > > > > > Mark resources IORESOURCE_UNSET when outside bridge windows") in
> > > > > > > > > > linux-next/master next-20250929 pci/next
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This replaces the actual resources by their sizes in the boot log on
> > > > > > > > > > e.g. on R-Car M2-W:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > pci-rcar-gen2 ee090000.pci: host bridge /soc/pci@ee090000 ranges:
> > > > > > > > > > pci-rcar-gen2 ee090000.pci: MEM 0x00ee080000..0x00ee08ffff -> 0x00ee080000
> > > > > > > > > > pci-rcar-gen2 ee090000.pci: PCI: revision 11
> > > > > > > > > > pci-rcar-gen2 ee090000.pci: PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> > > > > > > > > > pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00]
> > > > > > > > > > pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xee080000-0xee08ffff]
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:00.0: [1033:0000] type 00 class 0x060000 conventional PCI endpoint
> > > > > > > > > > -pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee090800-0xee090bff]
> > > > > > > > > > -pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 1 [mem 0x40000000-0x7fffffff pref]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is going to be the parent of these resources? They don't seem to fall
> > > > > > > > > under the root bus resource above in which case the output change is
> > > > > > > > > intentional so they don't appear as if address range would be "okay".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >From /proc/iomem:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ee080000-ee08ffff : pci@ee090000
> > > > > > > > ee080000-ee080fff : 0000:00:01.0
> > > > > > > > ee080000-ee080fff : ohci_hcd
> > > > > > > > ee081000-ee0810ff : 0000:00:02.0
> > > > > > > > ee081000-ee0810ff : ehci_hcd
> > > > > > > > ee090000-ee090bff : ee090000.pci pci@ee090000
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, so this seem to appear in the resource tree but not among the root
> > > > > > > bus resources.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ee0c0000-ee0cffff : pci@ee0d0000
> > > > > > > > ee0c0000-ee0c0fff : 0001:01:01.0
> > > > > > > > ee0c0000-ee0c0fff : ohci_hcd
> > > > > > > > ee0c1000-ee0c10ff : 0001:01:02.0
> > > > > > > > ee0c1000-ee0c10ff : ehci_hcd
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When IORESOURCE_UNSET is set in a resource, %pR does not print the start
> > > > > > > > > and end addresses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, that's how I found this commit, without bisecting ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00000400]
> > > > > > > > > > +pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 1 [mem size 0x40000000 pref]
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:01.0: [1033:0035] type 00 class 0x0c0310 conventional PCI endpoint
> > > > > > > > > > -pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000fff]
> > > > > > > > > > +pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00001000]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For this resource, it's very much intentional. It's a zero-based BAR which
> > > > > > > > > was left without IORESOURCE_UNSET prior to my patch leading to others part
> > > > > > > > > of the kernel to think that resource range valid and in use (in your
> > > > > > > > > case it's so small it wouldn't collide with anything but it wasn't
> > > > > > > > > properly set up resource, nonetheless).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:01.0: supports D1 D2
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:01.0: PME# supported from D0 D1 D2 D3hot
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:02.0: [1033:00e0] type 00 class 0x0c0320 conventional PCI endpoint
> > > > > > > > > > -pci 0000:00:02.0: BAR 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x000000ff]
> > > > > > > > > > +pci 0000:00:02.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00000100]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And this as well is very much intentional.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:02.0: supports D1 D2
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:02.0: PME# supported from D0 D1 D2 D3hot
> > > > > > > > > > PCI: bus0: Fast back to back transfers disabled
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee080000-0xee080fff]: assigned
> > > > > > > > > > pci 0000:00:02.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee081000-0xee0810ff]: assigned
> > > > > > > > > > pci_bus 0000:00: resource 4 [mem 0xee080000-0xee08ffff]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is that intentional?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There's also that pci_dbg() in the patch which would show the original
> > > > > > > > > addresses (print the resource before setting IORESOURCE_UNSET) but to see
> > > > > > > > > it one would need to enable it with dyndbg=... Bjorn was thinking of
> > > > > > > > > making that pci_info() though so it would appear always.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Was this the entire PCI related diff? I don't see those 0000:00:00.0 BARs
> > > > > > > > > getting assigned anywhere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The above log is almost complete (lacked enabling the device afterwards).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > AFAIU, the BARs come from the reg and ranges properties in the
> > > > > > > > PCI controller nodes;
> > > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17/source/arch/arm/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7791.dtsi#L1562
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, although I had already found this line by grep. I was just
> > > > > > > expecting the address appear among root bus resources too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Curiously enough, pci_register_host_bridge() seems to try to add some
> > > > > > > resource from that list into bus and it's what prints those "root bus
> > > > > > > resource" lines and ee090000 is not among the printed lines despite
> > > > > > > appearing in /proc/iomem. As is, the resource tree and PCI bus view on the
> > > > > > > resources seems to be in disagreement and I'm not sure what to make of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But before considering going into that direction or figuring out why this
> > > > > > > ee090000 resource does not appear among root bus resources, could you
> > > > > > > check if the attached patch changes behavior for the resource which are
> > > > > > > non-zero based?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch has no impact on dmesg, lspci output, or /proc/iomem
> > > > > > for pci-rcar-gen2.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would have been too easy... :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry I don't really know these platform well and I'm currently trying
> > > > > to understand what adds that ee090000 resource into the resource tree
> > > > > and so far I've not been very successful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps it would be easiest to print a stacktrace when the resource is
> > > > > added but there are many possible functions. I think all of them
> > > > > converge in __request_resource() so I suggest adding:
> > > > >
> > > > > WARN_ON(new->start == 0xee090000);
> > > > >
> > > > > before __request_resource() does anything.
> > > >
> > > > Call trace:
> > > > unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x10/0x14
> > > > show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x7c/0xb0
> > > > dump_stack_lvl from __warn+0x80/0x198
> > > > __warn from warn_slowpath_fmt+0xc0/0x124
> > > > warn_slowpath_fmt from __request_resource+0x38/0xc8
> > > > __request_resource from __request_region+0xc4/0x1e8
> > > > __request_region from __devm_request_region+0x80/0xac
> > > > __devm_request_region from __devm_ioremap_resource+0xcc/0x160
> > > > __devm_ioremap_resource from rcar_pci_probe+0x58/0x350
> > > > rcar_pci_probe from platform_probe+0x58/0x90
> > > >
> > > > I.e. the call to devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource() in
> > > > drivers/pci/controller/pci-rcar-gen2.c:rcar_pci_probe().
> > >
> > > Thanks, the patch below might help BAR0 (but I'm not sure if it's the
> > > correct solution due to being so unfamiliar with these kind of platforms
> > > and how they're initialized).
> >
> > Thanks, that has the following impact on dmesg:
> >
> > pci-rcar-gen2 ee090000.pci: PCI: revision 11
> > pci-rcar-gen2 ee090000.pci: PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> > pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [bus 00]
> > -pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xee080000-0xee08ffff]
> > +pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0xee080000-0xee090bff]
> > pci 0000:00:00.0: [1033:0000] type 00 class 0x060000 conventional
> > PCI endpoint
> > -pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee090800-0xee090bff]: no initial
> > claim (no window)
> > -pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00000400]
> > -pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 1 [mem 0x40000000-0x7fffffff pref]: no
> > initial claim (no window)
> > +pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee090800-0xee090bff]
> > pci 0000:00:00.0: BAR 1 [mem size 0x40000000 pref]
> > pci 0000:00:01.0: [1033:0035] type 00 class 0x0c0310 conventional
> > PCI endpoint
> > -pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000fff]: no initial
> > claim (no window)
> > pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00001000]
> > pci 0000:00:01.0: supports D1 D2
> > pci 0000:00:01.0: PME# supported from D0 D1 D2 D3hot
> > pci 0000:00:02.0: [1033:00e0] type 00 class 0x0c0320 conventional
> > PCI endpoint
> > -pci 0000:00:02.0: BAR 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x000000ff]: no initial
> > claim (no window)
>
> Did you e.g. forget to change pci_dbg() to pci_info() as these all went
> away, I cannot see why it should disappear because of my patch?
>
> (No need to apologize if that was the case, just confirming if that
> explains it is enough. :-))

I indeed dropped that change. Adding it back...

> > pci 0000:00:02.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00000100]
> > pci 0000:00:02.0: supports D1 D2
> > pci 0000:00:02.0: PME# supported from D0 D1 D2 D3hot
> > PCI: bus0: Fast back to back transfers disabled
> > pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee080000-0xee080fff]: assigned
> > pci 0000:00:02.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee081000-0xee0810ff]: assigned
>
> Perhaps print here what's the parent resource of these resource.

pci 0000:00:01.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee080000-0xee080fff]: assigned (parent
[mem 0xee080000-0xee08ffff])
pci 0000:00:02.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee081000-0xee0810ff]: assigned (parent
[mem 0xee080000-0xee08ffff])

>
> > -pci_bus 0000:00: resource 4 [mem 0xee080000-0xee08ffff]
> > +pci_bus 0000:00: resource 4 [mem 0xee080000-0xee090bff]
> > pci-rcar-gen2 ee0d0000.pci: adding to PM domain always-on
> > PM: genpd_add_device: Add ee0d0000.pci to always-on
> > pci-rcar-gen2 ee0d0000.pci: host bridge /soc/pci@ee0d0000 ranges:
> > @@ -414,26 +416,22 @@ PM: ==== always-on/ee0d0000.pci: start
> > pci-rcar-gen2 ee0d0000.pci: PCI: revision 11
> > pci-rcar-gen2 ee0d0000.pci: PCI host bridge to bus 0001:01
> > pci_bus 0001:01: root bus resource [bus 01]
> > -pci_bus 0001:01: root bus resource [mem 0xee0c0000-0xee0cffff]
> > +pci_bus 0001:01: root bus resource [mem 0xee0c0000-0xee0d0bff]
> > pci 0001:01:00.0: [1033:0000] type 00 class 0x060000 conventional PCI endpoint
> > -pci 0001:01:00.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee0d0800-0xee0d0bff]: no initial claim (no window)
> > -pci 0001:01:00.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00000400]
> > -pci 0001:01:00.0: BAR 1 [mem 0x40000000-0x7fffffff pref]: no initial claim (no window)
> > +pci 0001:01:00.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee0d0800-0xee0d0bff]
> > pci 0001:01:00.0: BAR 1 [mem size 0x40000000 pref]
> > pci 0001:01:01.0: [1033:0035] type 00 class 0x0c0310 conventional PCI endpoint
> > -pci 0001:01:01.0: BAR 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000fff]: no initial claim (no window)
> > pci 0001:01:01.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00001000]
> > pci 0001:01:01.0: supports D1 D2
> > pci 0001:01:01.0: PME# supported from D0 D1 D2 D3hot
> > pci 0001:01:02.0: [1033:00e0] type 00 class 0x0c0320 conventional PCI endpoint
> > -pci 0001:01:02.0: BAR 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x000000ff]: no initial claim (no window)
> > pci 0001:01:02.0: BAR 0 [mem size 0x00000100]
> > pci 0001:01:02.0: supports D1 D2
> > pci 0001:01:02.0: PME# supported from D0 D1 D2 D3hot
> > PCI: bus1: Fast back to back transfers disabled
> > pci 0001:01:01.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee0c0000-0xee0c0fff]: assigned
> > pci 0001:01:02.0: BAR 0 [mem 0xee0c1000-0xee0c10ff]: assigned
> > -pci_bus 0001:01: resource 4 [mem 0xee0c0000-0xee0cffff]
> > +pci_bus 0001:01: resource 4 [mem 0xee0c0000-0xee0d0bff]
> > rcar-pcie fe000000.pcie: adding to PM domain always-on
> > PM: genpd_add_device: Add fe000000.pcie to always-on
> > rcar-pcie fe000000.pcie: host bridge /soc/pcie@fe000000 ranges:
> >
> > and on /proc/iomem (I used "diff -w" to reduce clutter):
> >
> > ec700000-ec70ffff : ec700000.dma-controller dma-controller@ec700000
> > ec720000-ec72ffff : ec720000.dma-controller dma-controller@ec720000
> > ec740000-ec7401ff : ec500000.sound audmapp
> > -ee080000-ee08ffff : pci@ee090000
>
> So what did add this previous? (Maybe use the same WARN_ON() trick as
> previously to find out.)

First call:

+ __request_resource from request_resource_conflict+0x24/0x3c
+ request_resource_conflict from devm_request_resource+0x48/0x9c
+ devm_request_resource from devm_request_pci_bus_resources+0x5c/0x70
+ devm_request_pci_bus_resources from devm_of_pci_bridge_init+0x7c/0x1c0
+ devm_of_pci_bridge_init from devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge+0x44/0x6c
+ devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge from rcar_pci_probe+0x34/0x384
+ rcar_pci_probe from platform_probe+0x58/0x90

Second call:

+ __request_resource from allocate_resource+0x1b8/0x1d4
+ allocate_resource from pci_bus_alloc_from_region+0x1e0/0x220
+ pci_bus_alloc_from_region from pci_bus_alloc_resource+0x84/0xb8
+ pci_bus_alloc_resource from _pci_assign_resource+0x78/0x150
+ _pci_assign_resource from pci_assign_resource+0x10c/0x310
+ pci_assign_resource from assign_requested_resources_sorted+0x78/0xac
+ assign_requested_resources_sorted from
__assign_resources_sorted+0x74/0x5c4
+ __assign_resources_sorted from __pci_bus_assign_resources+0x50/0x1f0
+ __pci_bus_assign_resources from
pci_assign_unassigned_root_bus_resources+0xa8/0x190
+ pci_assign_unassigned_root_bus_resources from pci_host_probe+0x5c/0xb0
+ pci_host_probe from rcar_pci_probe+0x2e0/0x384
+ rcar_pci_probe from platform_probe+0x58/0x90

Third call:

+ __request_resource from __request_region+0xc4/0x1e8
+ __request_region from __devm_request_region+0x80/0xac
+ __devm_request_region from usb_hcd_pci_probe+0x15c/0x35c
+ usb_hcd_pci_probe from pci_device_probe+0x94/0x104
+ pci_device_probe from really_probe+0x128/0x28c

Fourth call:

+ __request_region from __devm_request_region+0x80/0xac
+ __devm_request_region from usb_hcd_pci_probe+0x15c/0x35c
+ usb_hcd_pci_probe from pci_device_probe+0x94/0x104
+ pci_device_probe from really_probe+0x128/0x28c

Fifth call:

+ __request_region from __devm_request_region+0x80/0xac
+ __devm_request_region from usb_hcd_pci_probe+0x15c/0x35c
+ usb_hcd_pci_probe from pci_device_probe+0x94/0x104
+ pci_device_probe from really_probe+0x128/0x28c

> It might have gotten broken because the coalesed resource
> ee080000-ee090bff overlaps with that other resource in the resource tree.
> But I don't see anything to that effect in the log so it's either silent
> failure or there's much filtered from the log.
>
> > - ee080000-ee080fff : 0000:00:01.0
> > ee080000-ee080fff : ohci_hcd
> > - ee081000-ee0810ff : 0000:00:02.0
> > ee081000-ee0810ff : ehci_hcd
> > ee090000-ee090bff : ee090000.pci pci@ee090000
> > -ee0c0000-ee0cffff : pci@ee0d0000
> > - ee0c0000-ee0c0fff : 0001:01:01.0
> > ee0c0000-ee0c0fff : ohci_hcd
> > - ee0c1000-ee0c10ff : 0001:01:02.0
> > ee0c1000-ee0c10ff : ehci_hcd
> > ee0d0000-ee0d0bff : ee0d0000.pci pci@ee0d0000
> > ee100000-ee100327 : ee100000.mmc mmc@ee100000
> >
> > Removing the pci@ee0x0000 and 000x:0x:0x.0 entries doesn't look
> > right to me? Or am I missing something?
>
> I cannot understand this output, these resources seem to have been now
> left without a parent and due to -w I don't know what's their real
> indentation level.

The *_hcd resources are now at the top level.

ec700000-ec70ffff : ec700000.dma-controller dma-controller@ec700000
ec720000-ec72ffff : ec720000.dma-controller dma-controller@ec720000
ec740000-ec7401ff : ec500000.sound audmapp
-ee080000-ee08ffff : pci@ee090000
- ee080000-ee080fff : 0000:00:01.0
- ee080000-ee080fff : ohci_hcd
- ee081000-ee0810ff : 0000:00:02.0
- ee081000-ee0810ff : ehci_hcd
+ee080000-ee080fff : ohci_hcd
+ee081000-ee0810ff : ehci_hcd
ee090000-ee090bff : ee090000.pci pci@ee090000
-ee0c0000-ee0cffff : pci@ee0d0000
- ee0c0000-ee0c0fff : 0001:01:01.0
- ee0c0000-ee0c0fff : ohci_hcd
- ee0c1000-ee0c10ff : 0001:01:02.0
- ee0c1000-ee0c10ff : ehci_hcd
+ee0c0000-ee0c0fff : ohci_hcd
+ee0c1000-ee0c10ff : ehci_hcd
ee0d0000-ee0d0bff : ee0d0000.pci pci@ee0d0000
ee100000-ee100327 : ee100000.mmc mmc@ee100000
ee140000-ee1400ff : ee140000.mmc mmc@ee140000

I assume the others are gone because they now conflict with the *_hcd
resources at the top level.

> > > If this works, we'll also have to decide what to do with the BAR1 (it
> > > didn't appear in your (partial?) /proc/iomem quote so I'm left unsure how
> > > to approach it).
> >
> > That is indeed not visible in /proc/iomem.
>
> I meant before the commit 06b77d5647a4d6a7 ("PCI Mark resources
> IORESOURCE_UNSET when outside bridge windows"), was it present?

No, it was not present.

> > I tried the following (whitespace-damaged):
> >
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-rcar-gen2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-rcar-gen2.c
> > @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ static void rcar_pci_setup(struct rcar_pci *priv)
> > unsigned long window_size;
> > unsigned long window_addr;
> > unsigned long window_pci;
> > + struct resource res;
> > u32 val;
> >
> > entry = resource_list_first_type(&bridge->dma_ranges, IORESOURCE_MEM);
> > @@ -191,6 +192,8 @@ static void rcar_pci_setup(struct rcar_pci *priv)
> > window_pci = entry->res->start - entry->offset;
> > window_size = resource_size(entry->res);
> > }
> > + resource_set_range(&res, window_addr, window_size);
>
> You need to set flags properly too as this now tried to insert BUS, not
> MEM resource (DEFINE_RES() might be the more appropriate in that case
> anyway).
>
> However, if there's not &bridge->dma_ranges ranges entry, rcar_pci_setup()
> seems to initialize the resource to 0x40000000-0x7fffffff and I'm not sure

I guess the not &bridge->dma_ranges case dates back to the time the
DTS didn't have dma-ranges yet. However, upon closer look, the DTS
still doesn't have dma_ranges, thus always using the default.

> how it's supposed to work if there's more than one of these devices as per
> the log above.

Upon closer look, this is not a resource of the device, but an inbound
memory region. Hence there is no issue if multiple devices use the
same region.

>
> > + pci_add_resource(&bridge->windows, &res);
>
> What would be the backing resource in the resource tree for this? I'm not
> sure if pci_add_resource() is going to result in adding one into the
> resource tree.

Likewise, it should not appear in /proc/ioem.
Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds