From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53102C4320A for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395BB600EF for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229940AbhHJRO0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:14:26 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38206 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229474AbhHJROY (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:14:24 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0D3060EB5; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1628615641; bh=3hvStO5mtP89PZL0SRaa4SH5ftb8hZFRahpmKIwYLSE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=MG6Iq0snBaaZQuXZQWLqCyuUmPcDe4ara15oBV0ONmWrge0Q+Z2YRLz0uAfFUqLn6 JNuFJ6IlHedZbnOHyhYwxfzrv3Ht0vQsWfcWM4iGoxLB25g7bJh7KxMwBcuN1dwwO+ DnqlnKVO6gJSpcbCS1p+qEuLFdp/duHZR0tvouKj6UsVJRu6NCVBMhFveuGYg8m8/h s2L1QeMCEuWYDdqx6gmbguvMntvuI/1WfXYCxsvBEe8NWaKLZH9WsF+blQ8mp/jwPG aUUKjGNFRJO76FOkNGtkN0VZwsugwidKXr71aL4I5Qr4R9u0syiyX5nYpQAGqcfd9R mCTQaeBmt5fsw== Received: by mail-qv1-f50.google.com with SMTP id s11so11301319qvz.7; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:14:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53259J5DJH18YKMUuppSzER/21/8TfTV/jp3eKd8UXAJWd/Im8Qb cvZO54+4ghM1y75jLrB3J8lDILf270u7E3MEoQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbSAKX9C/u3IRL3qRUvllPh6YBt2Y4FFNovGdXa5kdn08O6OM4jS0KgVnhRJGXDDBwRTTm6RSX8iS8weAiloo= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:edb0:: with SMTP id h16mr19355640qvr.11.1628615640933; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 10:14:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210804085045.3dddbb9c@coco.lan> <20210805094612.2bc2c78f@coco.lan> <20210805095848.464cf85c@coco.lan> <20210810114211.01df0246@coco.lan> <20210810162054.1aa84b84@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20210810162054.1aa84b84@coco.lan> From: Rob Herring Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:13:48 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] DT schema changes for HiKey970 PCIe hardware to work To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Linuxarm , mauro.chehab@huawei.com, Binghui Wang , Gustavo Pimentel , Jingoo Han , Xiaowei Song , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , PCI , linux-phy@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 8:21 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Tue, 10 Aug 2021 07:44:50 -0600 > Rob Herring escreveu: > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 3:42 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > wrote: > > > > > > Em Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:23:35 -0600 > > > Rob Herring escreveu: > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:58 AM Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Em Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:46:12 +0200 > > > > > Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > Em Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:28:53 -0600 > > > > > > Rob Herring escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 08:50:45AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > > > > Em Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:11:42 -0600 > > > > > > > > Rob Herring escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 10:39 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the third version of the DT bindings for Kirin 970 PCIE and its > > > > > > > > > > corresponding PHY. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is identical to v2, except by: > > > > > > > > > > - pcie@7,0 { // Lane 7: Ethernet > > > > > > > > > > + pcie@7,0 { // Lane 6: Ethernet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you check whether you have DT node links in sysfs for the PCI > > > > > > > > > devices? If you don't, then something is wrong still in the topology > > > > > > > > > or the PCI core is failing to set the DT node pointer in struct > > > > > > > > > device. Though you don't rely on that currently, we want the topology > > > > > > > > > to match. It's possible this never worked on arm/arm64 as mainly > > > > > > > > > powerpc relied on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like some way to validate the DT matches the PCI topology. We > > > > > > > > > could have a tool that generates the DT structure based on the PCI > > > > > > > > > topology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The of_node node link is on those places: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ find /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/ -name of_node > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/of_node > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/of_node > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/pci_bus/0000:01/of_node > > > > > > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/pci_bus/0000:00/of_node > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we're missing some... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not immediately obvious to me what's wrong here. Only the root > > > > > > > bus is getting it's DT node set. The relevant code is pci_scan_device(), > > > > > > > pci_set_of_node() and pci_set_bus_of_node(). Give me a few days to try > > > > > > > to reproduce and debug it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I added a printk on both pci_set_*of_node() functions: > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 4.872991] (null): pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000 > > > > > > [ 4.913806] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000 > > > > > > [ 4.978102] pci_bus 0000:01: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > > > > [ 4.990622] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > > > > [ 5.052383] pci_bus 0000:02: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.059263] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.085552] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.112073] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.138320] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.164673] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.233759] pci_bus 0000:03: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.240539] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.310545] pci_bus 0000:04: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.324719] pci_bus 0000:05: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.338914] pci_bus 0000:06: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.345516] (null): pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > [ 5.415795] pci_bus 0000:07: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > > > > > The enclosed patch makes the above a clearer: > > > > > > > > > > [ 4.800975] (null): pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000 > > > > > [ 4.855983] pci 0000:00:00.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000 > > > > > [ 4.879169] pci_bus 0000:01: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > > > [ 4.900602] pci 0000:01:00.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > > > [ 4.953086] pci_bus 0000:02: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > > > I believe the issue is we need another bridge node in the DT > > > > hierarchy. What we have is: > > > > > > > > Bus 0 is node /soc/pcie@f4000000 > > > > Bus 1 is device 0 on bus 0 is node /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > > Bus 2 is device 0 on bus 1 in node ... whoops, there's no device 0 > > > > under /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > > > > > > So we need the hierarchy to be: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0/pcie@0/pcie@{1,5,7} > > > > > > Adding a child pcie@0 produces the following output from my debug > > > patches: > > > > You removed your changes to the PCI code other than the debug print? > > Yes. > > > > > > > [ 4.984278] (null): pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000 > > > [ 5.042992] pci 0000:00:00.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000 > > > [ 5.083738] pci_bus 0000:01: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > [ 5.124377] pci 0000:01:00.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0 > > > [ 5.168395] pci_bus 0000:02: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0/pcie@0,0 > > > [ 5.200719] pci 0000:02:01.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0/pcie@0,0 > > > > This should not happen. The devfn doesn't match. > > > > > [ 5.247777] pci 0000:02:04.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0/pcie@0,0 > > > [ 5.276768] pci 0000:02:05.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0/pcie@0,0 > > > [ 5.305018] pci 0000:02:07.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0/pcie@0,0 > > > [ 5.333093] pci 0000:02:09.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: /soc/pcie@f4000000/pcie@0,0/pcie@0,0 > > > [ 5.395620] pci_bus 0000:03: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > [ 5.416333] pci 0000:03:00.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > [ 5.451353] pci_bus 0000:04: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > [ 5.473970] pci_bus 0000:05: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > [ 5.487765] pci_bus 0000:06: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > [ 5.530219] pci 0000:06:00.0: pci_set_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > [ 5.560896] pci_bus 0000:07: pci_set_bus_of_node: of_node: (null) > > > > > > It produces the following sysfs nodes: > > > > > > $ find /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/ -name of_node > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/of_node > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/of_node > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/0000:01:00.0/of_node > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/0000:01:00.0/pci_bus/0000:02/of_node > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/pci_bus/0000:01/of_node > > > /sys/devices/platform/soc/f4000000.pcie/pci0000:00/pci_bus/0000:00/of_node > > > > > > > > > I'm enclosing the DT schema I'm using. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mauro > > > > > > --- > > > > > > pcie@f4000000 { > > > compatible = "hisilicon,kirin970-pcie"; > > > reg = <0x0 0xf4000000 0x0 0x1000000>, > > > <0x0 0xfc180000 0x0 0x1000>, > > > <0x0 0xf5000000 0x0 0x2000>; > > > reg-names = "dbi", "apb", "config"; > > > bus-range = <0x00 0xff>; > > > #address-cells = <3>; > > > #size-cells = <2>; > > > device_type = "pci"; > > > phys = <&pcie_phy>; > > > ranges = <0x02000000 0x0 0x00000000 > > > 0x0 0xf6000000 > > > 0x0 0x02000000>; > > > num-lanes = <1>; > > > #interrupt-cells = <1>; > > > interrupts = ; > > > interrupt-names = "msi"; > > > interrupt-map-mask = <0 0 0 7>; > > > interrupt-map = <0x0 0 0 1 > > > &gic GIC_SPI 282 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <0x0 0 0 2 > > > &gic GIC_SPI 283 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <0x0 0 0 3 > > > &gic GIC_SPI 284 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > > > <0x0 0 0 4 > > > &gic GIC_SPI 285 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > > > reset-gpios = <&gpio7 0 0>; > > > hisilicon,clken-gpios = <&gpio27 3 0>, <&gpio17 0 0>, > > > <&gpio20 6 0>; > > > pcie@0,0 { // Lane 0: PCIe switch: Bus 1, Device 0 > > > reg = <0x80 0 0 0 0>; > > > > s/0x80/0/ > > > > > compatible = "pciclass,0604"; > > > device_type = "pci"; > > > #address-cells = <3>; > > > #size-cells = <2>; > > > ranges; > > > bus-range = <0x01 0xff>; > > > msi-parent = <&its_pcie>; > > > > > > pcie@0,0 { // Lane 0: upstream > > > reg = <0x010000 0 0 0 0>; > > > > While technically correct having the bus# in the address, that doesn't > > work for FDT since we don't know the bus assignment. So we should just > > use 0. > > Using 0 causes DTB compilation to produce a warning, due to the > bus-range. Without the bus-range, there will be runtime warnings, > as this will be assigned as bus 1. Okay, that might be something we need to fix. > > > compatible = "pciclass,0604"; > > > device_type = "pci"; > > > #address-cells = <3>; > > > #size-cells = <2>; > > > ranges; > > > }; > > > pcie@1,0 { // Lane 4: M.2 > > > > These 3 nodes (1, 5, 7) need to be child nodes of the above node. This was the main issue. Rob