All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Frank Rowand" <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of_pci_irq: add a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:32:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517563970.24622.9.camel@mtkswgap22> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLZqrxxpuEnoWEGkT2WCuyjqn0bM1DP8PdAwnQsso8kOA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 10:02 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > A root complex usually consist of a host bridge and multiple P2P bridges,
> > and someone may express that in the form of a root node with many subnodes
> > and list all four interrupts for each slot (child node) in the root node
> > like this:
> >
> >         pcie-controller {
> >                 ...
> >                 interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>;
> >                 interrupt-map = <0x0000 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>
> >                                  0x0800 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>;
> >
> >                 pcie@0,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >
> >                 pcie@1,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0800 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >         };
> >
> > As shown above, we'd like to propagate IRQs from a root port to the devices
> > in the hierarchy below it in this way.  However, it seems that the current
> > parser couldn't handle such cases and will get something unexpected below:
> >
> >         pcieport 0000:00:01.0: assign IRQ: got 213
> >         igb 0000:01:00.0: assign IRQ: got 212
> >
> > There is a device which is connected to 2nd slot, but the port doesn't share
> > the same IRQ with its downstream devices.  The problem here is that, if the
> > loop found a P2P bridge, it wouldn't check whether the reg property exists
> > in ppnode or not but just pass the subordinate devfn to of_irq_parse_raw(),
> > thus the subsequent flow couldn't correctly resolve them.
> >
> > Fix this by adding a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > Please refer to the previous discussion thread: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/829108/
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > index 3a05568..e445866 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > @@ -86,8 +86,18 @@ int of_irq_parse_pci(const struct pci_dev *pdev, struct of_phandle_args *out_irq
> >         out_irq->np = ppnode;
> >         out_irq->args_count = 1;
> >         out_irq->args[0] = pin;
> > -       laddr[0] = cpu_to_be32((pdev->bus->number << 16) | (pdev->devfn << 8));
> > -       laddr[1] = laddr[2] = cpu_to_be32(0);
> > +
> > +       if (!dn && ppnode) {
> 
> I would think whether you have a child device in DT or not is
> irrelevant. If it's the bridge address you need to look at for
> resolving interrupts, that would be true regardless.
> 
> > +               const __be32 *addr;
> > +
> > +               addr = of_get_property(ppnode, "reg", NULL);
> > +               if (addr)
> > +                       memcpy(laddr, addr, 3);
> 
> Can't you just adjust pdev to be ppdev in this case and then use the
> existing code to set laddr?

Okay, I will try it out and and see if the code gets better or worse.
 
> Please copy the powerpc list on this. I worry that touching this
> function will break something.
> BTW, this code is moving to drivers/pci/ in 4.16.

Sure. I will loop more people in next version.

Thanks

> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of_pci_irq: add a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:32:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517563970.24622.9.camel@mtkswgap22> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLZqrxxpuEnoWEGkT2WCuyjqn0bM1DP8PdAwnQsso8kOA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 10:02 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > A root complex usually consist of a host bridge and multiple P2P bridges,
> > and someone may express that in the form of a root node with many subnodes
> > and list all four interrupts for each slot (child node) in the root node
> > like this:
> >
> >         pcie-controller {
> >                 ...
> >                 interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>;
> >                 interrupt-map = <0x0000 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>
> >                                  0x0800 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>;
> >
> >                 pcie@0,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >
> >                 pcie@1,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0800 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >         };
> >
> > As shown above, we'd like to propagate IRQs from a root port to the devices
> > in the hierarchy below it in this way.  However, it seems that the current
> > parser couldn't handle such cases and will get something unexpected below:
> >
> >         pcieport 0000:00:01.0: assign IRQ: got 213
> >         igb 0000:01:00.0: assign IRQ: got 212
> >
> > There is a device which is connected to 2nd slot, but the port doesn't share
> > the same IRQ with its downstream devices.  The problem here is that, if the
> > loop found a P2P bridge, it wouldn't check whether the reg property exists
> > in ppnode or not but just pass the subordinate devfn to of_irq_parse_raw(),
> > thus the subsequent flow couldn't correctly resolve them.
> >
> > Fix this by adding a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > Please refer to the previous discussion thread: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/829108/
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > index 3a05568..e445866 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > @@ -86,8 +86,18 @@ int of_irq_parse_pci(const struct pci_dev *pdev, struct of_phandle_args *out_irq
> >         out_irq->np = ppnode;
> >         out_irq->args_count = 1;
> >         out_irq->args[0] = pin;
> > -       laddr[0] = cpu_to_be32((pdev->bus->number << 16) | (pdev->devfn << 8));
> > -       laddr[1] = laddr[2] = cpu_to_be32(0);
> > +
> > +       if (!dn && ppnode) {
> 
> I would think whether you have a child device in DT or not is
> irrelevant. If it's the bridge address you need to look at for
> resolving interrupts, that would be true regardless.
> 
> > +               const __be32 *addr;
> > +
> > +               addr = of_get_property(ppnode, "reg", NULL);
> > +               if (addr)
> > +                       memcpy(laddr, addr, 3);
> 
> Can't you just adjust pdev to be ppdev in this case and then use the
> existing code to set laddr?

Okay, I will try it out and and see if the code gets better or worse.
 
> Please copy the powerpc list on this. I worry that touching this
> function will break something.
> BTW, this code is moving to drivers/pci/ in 4.16.

Sure. I will loop more people in next version.

Thanks

> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of_pci_irq: add a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:32:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517563970.24622.9.camel@mtkswgap22> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLZqrxxpuEnoWEGkT2WCuyjqn0bM1DP8PdAwnQsso8kOA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 10:02 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > A root complex usually consist of a host bridge and multiple P2P bridges,
> > and someone may express that in the form of a root node with many subnodes
> > and list all four interrupts for each slot (child node) in the root node
> > like this:
> >
> >         pcie-controller {
> >                 ...
> >                 interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>;
> >                 interrupt-map = <0x0000 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>
> >                                  0x0800 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>;
> >
> >                 pcie@0,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >
> >                 pcie@1,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0800 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >         };
> >
> > As shown above, we'd like to propagate IRQs from a root port to the devices
> > in the hierarchy below it in this way.  However, it seems that the current
> > parser couldn't handle such cases and will get something unexpected below:
> >
> >         pcieport 0000:00:01.0: assign IRQ: got 213
> >         igb 0000:01:00.0: assign IRQ: got 212
> >
> > There is a device which is connected to 2nd slot, but the port doesn't share
> > the same IRQ with its downstream devices.  The problem here is that, if the
> > loop found a P2P bridge, it wouldn't check whether the reg property exists
> > in ppnode or not but just pass the subordinate devfn to of_irq_parse_raw(),
> > thus the subsequent flow couldn't correctly resolve them.
> >
> > Fix this by adding a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > Please refer to the previous discussion thread: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/829108/
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > index 3a05568..e445866 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > @@ -86,8 +86,18 @@ int of_irq_parse_pci(const struct pci_dev *pdev, struct of_phandle_args *out_irq
> >         out_irq->np = ppnode;
> >         out_irq->args_count = 1;
> >         out_irq->args[0] = pin;
> > -       laddr[0] = cpu_to_be32((pdev->bus->number << 16) | (pdev->devfn << 8));
> > -       laddr[1] = laddr[2] = cpu_to_be32(0);
> > +
> > +       if (!dn && ppnode) {
> 
> I would think whether you have a child device in DT or not is
> irrelevant. If it's the bridge address you need to look at for
> resolving interrupts, that would be true regardless.
> 
> > +               const __be32 *addr;
> > +
> > +               addr = of_get_property(ppnode, "reg", NULL);
> > +               if (addr)
> > +                       memcpy(laddr, addr, 3);
> 
> Can't you just adjust pdev to be ppdev in this case and then use the
> existing code to set laddr?

Okay, I will try it out and and see if the code gets better or worse.
 
> Please copy the powerpc list on this. I worry that touching this
> function will break something.
> BTW, this code is moving to drivers/pci/ in 4.16.

Sure. I will loop more people in next version.

Thanks

> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ryder.lee@mediatek.com (Ryder Lee)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] of_pci_irq: add a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:32:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517563970.24622.9.camel@mtkswgap22> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqLZqrxxpuEnoWEGkT2WCuyjqn0bM1DP8PdAwnQsso8kOA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 10:02 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > A root complex usually consist of a host bridge and multiple P2P bridges,
> > and someone may express that in the form of a root node with many subnodes
> > and list all four interrupts for each slot (child node) in the root node
> > like this:
> >
> >         pcie-controller {
> >                 ...
> >                 interrupt-map-mask = <0xf800 0 0 7>;
> >                 interrupt-map = <0x0000 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>
> >                                  0x0800 0 0 {INTx} &{interrupt parent} ...>;
> >
> >                 pcie at 0,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >
> >                 pcie at 1,0 {
> >                         reg = <0x0800 0 0 0 0>;
> >                         ...
> >                 };
> >         };
> >
> > As shown above, we'd like to propagate IRQs from a root port to the devices
> > in the hierarchy below it in this way.  However, it seems that the current
> > parser couldn't handle such cases and will get something unexpected below:
> >
> >         pcieport 0000:00:01.0: assign IRQ: got 213
> >         igb 0000:01:00.0: assign IRQ: got 212
> >
> > There is a device which is connected to 2nd slot, but the port doesn't share
> > the same IRQ with its downstream devices.  The problem here is that, if the
> > loop found a P2P bridge, it wouldn't check whether the reg property exists
> > in ppnode or not but just pass the subordinate devfn to of_irq_parse_raw(),
> > thus the subsequent flow couldn't correctly resolve them.
> >
> > Fix this by adding a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > Please refer to the previous discussion thread: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/829108/
> > ---
> >  drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > index 3a05568..e445866 100644
> > --- a/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c
> > @@ -86,8 +86,18 @@ int of_irq_parse_pci(const struct pci_dev *pdev, struct of_phandle_args *out_irq
> >         out_irq->np = ppnode;
> >         out_irq->args_count = 1;
> >         out_irq->args[0] = pin;
> > -       laddr[0] = cpu_to_be32((pdev->bus->number << 16) | (pdev->devfn << 8));
> > -       laddr[1] = laddr[2] = cpu_to_be32(0);
> > +
> > +       if (!dn && ppnode) {
> 
> I would think whether you have a child device in DT or not is
> irrelevant. If it's the bridge address you need to look at for
> resolving interrupts, that would be true regardless.
> 
> > +               const __be32 *addr;
> > +
> > +               addr = of_get_property(ppnode, "reg", NULL);
> > +               if (addr)
> > +                       memcpy(laddr, addr, 3);
> 
> Can't you just adjust pdev to be ppdev in this case and then use the
> existing code to set laddr?

Okay, I will try it out and and see if the code gets better or worse.
 
> Please copy the powerpc list on this. I worry that touching this
> function will break something.
> BTW, this code is moving to drivers/pci/ in 4.16.

Sure. I will loop more people in next version.

Thanks

> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-02  9:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-31  7:41 [PATCH 1/2] of_pci_irq: add a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing Ryder Lee
2018-01-31  7:41 ` Ryder Lee
2018-01-31  7:41 ` Ryder Lee
2018-01-31  7:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: PCI: MediaTek: Correct the interrupt-map properties Ryder Lee
2018-01-31  7:41   ` Ryder Lee
2018-01-31  7:41   ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-05  6:08   ` Rob Herring
2018-02-05  6:08     ` Rob Herring
2018-02-05  6:08     ` Rob Herring
2018-02-07 12:43     ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-07 12:43       ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-07 12:43       ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-07 12:43       ` Ryder Lee
2018-01-31 16:02 ` [PATCH 1/2] of_pci_irq: add a check to fallback to standard device tree parsing Rob Herring
2018-01-31 16:02   ` Rob Herring
2018-01-31 16:02   ` Rob Herring
2018-01-31 16:02   ` Rob Herring
2018-02-02  9:32   ` Ryder Lee [this message]
2018-02-02  9:32     ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-02  9:32     ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-02  9:32     ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-05 21:36     ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-05 21:36       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-05 21:36       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-05 21:36       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  2:38       ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  2:38         ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  2:38         ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  2:38         ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  4:05         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  4:05           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  4:05           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  4:05           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  4:31           ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  4:31             ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  4:31             ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  4:31             ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  4:50             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  4:50               ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  4:50               ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06  5:42               ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  5:42                 ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  5:42                 ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06  5:42                 ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-06 22:31                 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06 22:31                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-06 22:31                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2018-02-07  1:58                   ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-07  1:58                     ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-07  1:58                     ` Ryder Lee
2018-02-07  1:58                     ` Ryder Lee
2018-03-15 17:43 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2018-03-15 17:43   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2018-03-15 17:43   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2018-03-16  0:58   ` Ryder Lee
2018-03-16  0:58     ` Ryder Lee
2018-03-16  0:58     ` Ryder Lee
2018-03-16  0:58     ` Ryder Lee

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1517563970.24622.9.camel@mtkswgap22 \
    --to=ryder.lee@mediatek.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.