[U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Support parsing PCI controller DT subnodes

Bin Meng
2018-08-14T09:40:12Z

Hi Marek,

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/14/2018 03:46 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/13/2018 04:24 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 08/10/2018 02:01 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 09:37:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 05:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:39 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:14 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The PCI controller can have DT subnodes describing extra properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of particular PCI devices, ie. a PHY attached to an EHCI controller
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a PCI bus. This patch parses those DT subnodes and assigns a node
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the PCI device instance, so that the driver can extract details
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that node and ie. configure the PHY using the PHY subsystem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 46e9c71bdf..306bea0dbf 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ static int pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct udevice *parent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (id = entry->match;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> id->vendor || id->subvendor || id->class_mask;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> id++) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ofnode node;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (!pci_match_one_id(id, find_id))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -691,6 +693,18 @@ static int pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct udevice *parent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goto error;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> debug("%s: Match found: %s\n", __func__, drv->name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev->driver_data = find_id->driver_data;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev_for_each_subnode(node, parent) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + phys_addr_t df, size;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + df = ofnode_get_addr_size(node, "reg", &size);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (PCI_FUNC(df) == PCI_FUNC(bdf) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + PCI_DEV(df) == PCI_DEV(bdf)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev->node = node;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The function pci_find_and_bind_driver() is supposed to bind devices
>>>>>>>>>>>> that are NOT in the device tree. Adding device tree access in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> routine is quite odd. You can add the EHCI controller that need such
>>>>>>>>>>>> PHY subnodes in the device tree and there is no need to modify
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything I believe. If you are looking for an example, please check
>>>>>>>>>>>> pciuart0 in arch/x86/dts/crownbay.dts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well this does not work for me, the EHCI PCI doesn't get a DT node
>>>>>>>>>>> assigned, check r8a7794.dtsi for the PCI devices I use.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that's because you don't specify a "compatible" string for
>>>>>>>>>> these two EHCI PCI nodes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's perfectly fine, why should I specify it ? Linux has no problem
>>>>>>>>> with it either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without a "compatible" string, DM does not bind any device in the
>>>>>>>> device tree to a driver, hence no device node created. This is not
>>>>>>>> Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DT is NOT Linux specific, it is OS-agnostic, DT describes hardware and
>>>>>>> hardware only. If U-Boot cannot parse DT correctly, U-Boot is broken and
>>>>>>> must be fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a fix. If there is a better fix, I am open to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DT should but isn't always OS agnostic. DTS files that reside in the
>>>>>> Linux Kernel are in practice is Linux-centric with the expectation that
>>>>>> even if you could solve a given problem with valid DTS changes you make
>>>>>> whatever is parsing it do additional logic instead. That,
>>>>>> approximately, is what your patch is doing. If you added some HW
>>>>>> description information to the dtsi file everything would work as
>>>>>> expected as your DTS is describing the hardware and U-Boot is reading
>>>>>> that description and figuring out what to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you need additional logic to match the PCI controller subnode in DT
>>>>> with PCI device BFD, that's expected. You do NOT need extra compatibles,
>>>>> the PCI bus gives you enough information to match a driver on them. In
>>>>> fact, adding a compatible can interfere with this matching.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please, read U-Boot's doc/driver-model/pci-info.txt. You really don't
>>>> understand current implementation in U-Boot. In short, U-Boot supports
>>>> two scenarios for PCI driver binding:
>>>
>>> That documentation is wrong and needs to be fixed. The compatible is
>>> optional.
>>>
>>
>> No it is not wrong. The documentation reflects the update-to-date
>> U-Boot support of PCI bus with DM.
>
> Which is incomplete, as it cannot parse subnodes without compatible strings.
>

No, it's by design, as I said many times. It can support parsing
subnodes with a "compatible" string existence.

>>>> - Declare a PCI device in the device tree. That requires specifying a
>>>> 'compatible' string as well as 'reg' property as defined by the 'PCI
>>>> Bus Binding' spec. DM uses the 'compatible' string to bind the driver
>>>> for the device.
>>>> - Don't declare a PCI device in the device tree. Instead, using
>>>> U_BOOT_PCI_DEVICE() to declare a device and driver mapping.
>>>>
>>>> You can choose either two when you support PCI devices on your board,
>>>> but you cannot mix both support together and make them a mess. In this
>>>> patch, you hacked pci_find_and_bind_driver() which is the 2nd scenario
>>>> to support the 1st scenario.
>>>
>>> Again, the DT contains all the required information to bind the node and
>>> the driver instance. Clearly, we need option 3 for this.
>>>
>>
>> Then that's a new design proposal. Anything that wants to mess up
>> current design is a hack.
>
> That means every single patch anyone submits is now a hack ? Please ...
>

I never said "every single patch anyone submits is now a hack". "You
are inserting words into my mouth and I dislike that." I said your
current patch is against the design, and mess up current design which
is a hack.

Regards,
Bin