From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 01:35:19 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] pci: Add error values definitions from the kernel In-Reply-To: References: <1452113598-32409-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201601080135.20074.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Friday, January 08, 2016 at 01:31:17 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > >> What new feature would benefit from this? These two PCIe drivers are > >> non-DM drivers and DM PCI is not utilizing those error codes, instead > >> DM PCI is using U-Boot standard error codes. > > > > but what prevents DM PCI to use the kernel error codes in the future? > > > > Returning PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND when the config is invalid is a > > common pattern in the kernel. > > > > Take a look at these drivers: > > > > drivers/pci/access.c > > drivers/pci/host/pci-mvebu.c > > drivers/pci/host/pci-xgene.c > > drivers/pci/host/pcie-altera.c > > drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c > > drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c > > drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c > > > > I don't see why we can't do the same in U-boot. > > I am sorry but this does not convince me. Kernel is using these codes, > but I don't see any PCI library codes in kernel that actually parses > these error codes. > > > Feel free to submit a patch with your proposal and the maintainer can > > then decide which one is more adequate for U-boot. > > My points are: > 1). These two drivers are non-DM drivers. We should start converting > them to DM drivers first instead of adding new stuff which is only > used by legacy drivers. I have pcie_layerscape on my TODO list. This point is invalid, I see this patch series is just fixing bugs and converting drivers to DM is _far_ beyond the scope of this series. > 2). We should stick to the correct behavior. The PCIe controller is > buggy that it cannot return 0xFFFFFFFF by hardware, like other > controllers do. IMHO it's completely a horrible controller, that > comments in ls_pcie_addr_valid() says: "Controller does not support > multi-function in RC mode". Can you elaborate on why do you think it is a horrible controller ? Most of the controllers I saw used on ARM were this way. > 3). If we want to align with kernel, I want to see a plan of at least > adopting these error codes in DM PCI. This is something which is not > clear for now. No, this is again far beyond the scope of this series. I want PCI on iMX and LS to work in the current release, period. So from my side, I want these patches to go in. > Simon, what's your opinion on this? > > Regards, > Bin Best regards, Marek Vasut