[PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Vidya Sagar]

In this patch series,
Patch-1
adds required infrastructure to deal with prefetchable memory region
information coming from 'ranges' property of the respective device-tree node
separately from non-prefetchable memory region information.
Patch-2
Adds support to use ATU region-3 for establishing the mapping between CPU
addresses and PCIe bus addresses.
It also changes the logic to determine whether mapping is required or not by
checking both CPU address and PCIe bus address for both prefetchable and
non-prefetchable regions. If the addresses are same, then, it is understood
that 1:1 mapping is in place and there is no need to setup ATU mapping
whereas if the addresses are not the same, then, there is a need to setup ATU
mapping. This is certainly true for Tegra194 and what I heard from our HW
engineers is that it should generally be true for any DWC based implementation
also.
Hence, I request Synopsys folks (Jingoo Han & Gustavo Pimentel ??) to confirm
the same so that this particular patch won't cause any regressions for other
DWC based platforms.

Vidya Sagar (2):
  PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately
  PCI: dwc: Use ATU region to map prefetchable memory region

 .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 46 ++++++++++++++-----
 drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c  |  6 ++-
 drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  8 +++-
 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 1/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Vidya Sagar]

Add required structure members to struct pcie_port to handle prefetchable
memory aperture separately from non-prefetchable memory aperture so that
any dependency on the order of their appearance in the 'ranges' property
of the respective PCIe device tree node can be removed.

Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>
---
 .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------
 drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  4 +++
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
index 42fbfe2a1b8f..6f06d6bd9f00 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
@@ -363,13 +363,23 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
 			pp->io_base = pci_pio_to_address(pp->io->start);
 			break;
 		case IORESOURCE_MEM:
-			pp->mem = win->res;
-			pp->mem->name = "MEM";
-			mem_size = resource_size(pp->mem);
-			if (upper_32_bits(mem_size))
-				dev_warn(dev, "MEM resource size exceeds max for 32 bits\n");
-			pp->mem_size = mem_size;
-			pp->mem_bus_addr = pp->mem->start - win->offset;
+			if (win->res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) {
+				pp->prefetch = win->res;
+				pp->prefetch->name = "PREFETCH";
+				pp->prefetch_base = pp->prefetch->start;
+				pp->prefetch_size = resource_size(pp->prefetch);
+				pp->perfetch_bus_addr = pp->prefetch->start -
+							win->offset;
+			} else {
+				pp->mem = win->res;
+				pp->mem->name = "MEM";
+				pp->mem_base = pp->mem->start;
+				mem_size = resource_size(pp->mem);
+				if (upper_32_bits(mem_size))
+					dev_warn(dev, "MEM resource size exceeds max for 32 bits\n");
+				pp->mem_size = mem_size;
+				pp->mem_bus_addr = pp->mem->start - win->offset;
+			}
 			break;
 		case 0:
 			pp->cfg = win->res;
@@ -394,8 +404,6 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
 		}
 	}
 
-	pp->mem_base = pp->mem->start;
-
 	if (!pp->va_cfg0_base) {
 		pp->va_cfg0_base = devm_pci_remap_cfgspace(dev,
 					pp->cfg0_base, pp->cfg0_size);
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
index 656e00f8fbeb..c87c1b2a1177 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
@@ -186,9 +186,13 @@ struct pcie_port {
 	u64			mem_base;
 	phys_addr_t		mem_bus_addr;
 	u32			mem_size;
+	u64			prefetch_base;
+	phys_addr_t		perfetch_bus_addr;
+	u64			prefetch_size;
 	struct resource		*cfg;
 	struct resource		*io;
 	struct resource		*mem;
+	struct resource		*prefetch;
 	struct resource		*busn;
 	int			irq;
 	const struct dw_pcie_host_ops *ops;
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH 1/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 03:39:39PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> Add required structure members to struct pcie_port to handle prefetchable
> memory aperture separately from non-prefetchable memory aperture so that
> any dependency on the order of their appearance in the 'ranges' property
> of the respective PCIe device tree node can be removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  4 +++
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> index 42fbfe2a1b8f..6f06d6bd9f00 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
> @@ -363,13 +363,23 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>  			pp->io_base = pci_pio_to_address(pp->io->start);
>  			break;
>  		case IORESOURCE_MEM:
> -			pp->mem = win->res;
> -			pp->mem->name = "MEM";
> -			mem_size = resource_size(pp->mem);
> -			if (upper_32_bits(mem_size))
> -				dev_warn(dev, "MEM resource size exceeds max for 32 bits\n");
> -			pp->mem_size = mem_size;
> -			pp->mem_bus_addr = pp->mem->start - win->offset;
> +			if (win->res->flags & IORESOURCE_PREFETCH) {
> +				pp->prefetch = win->res;
> +				pp->prefetch->name = "PREFETCH";
> +				pp->prefetch_base = pp->prefetch->start;
> +				pp->prefetch_size = resource_size(pp->prefetch);
> +				pp->perfetch_bus_addr = pp->prefetch->start -
> +							win->offset;
> +			} else {
> +				pp->mem = win->res;
> +				pp->mem->name = "MEM";
> +				pp->mem_base = pp->mem->start;
> +				mem_size = resource_size(pp->mem);
> +				if (upper_32_bits(mem_size))
> +					dev_warn(dev, "MEM resource size exceeds max for 32 bits\n");
> +				pp->mem_size = mem_size;
> +				pp->mem_bus_addr = pp->mem->start - win->offset;
> +			}
>  			break;
>  		case 0:
>  			pp->cfg = win->res;
> @@ -394,8 +404,6 @@ int dw_pcie_host_init(struct pcie_port *pp)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	pp->mem_base = pp->mem->start;
> -
>  	if (!pp->va_cfg0_base) {
>  		pp->va_cfg0_base = devm_pci_remap_cfgspace(dev,
>  					pp->cfg0_base, pp->cfg0_size);
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
> index 656e00f8fbeb..c87c1b2a1177 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
> @@ -186,9 +186,13 @@ struct pcie_port {
>  	u64			mem_base;
>  	phys_addr_t		mem_bus_addr;
>  	u32			mem_size;
> +	u64			prefetch_base;
> +	phys_addr_t		perfetch_bus_addr;
> +	u64			prefetch_size;

There's no reason to store these for all eternity as they are used in 
one place and already stored as resources in bridge->windows.

I have a patch series removing most of this that I will post in a few 
days. There's a WIP branch, pci-dw-config-access, in my kernel.org 
tree. Mostly you just need the bridge ptr which is isn't currently 
saved in pcie_port.

Rob

[PATCH 2/2] PCI: dwc: Use ATU region to map prefetchable memory region

[Vidya Sagar]

Use ATU region-3 to setup mapping for prefetchable memory region. It also
modifies the code to consume an ATU region for mapping non-prefetchable or
prefetchable memory regions only if the CPU address and PCIe bus addresses
are not equal as there is no need to use ATU mapping if there is a 1:1
mapping between CPU address and PCIe bus address.

Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>
---
 .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++---
 drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c  |  6 ++++--
 drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  4 +++-
 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
index 6f06d6bd9f00..cd3b52c93f05 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c
@@ -701,13 +701,27 @@ void dw_pcie_setup_rc(struct pcie_port *pp)
 	 * we should not program the ATU here.
 	 */
 	if (!pp->ops->rd_other_conf) {
-		dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu(pci, PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0,
-					  PCIE_ATU_TYPE_MEM, pp->mem_base,
-					  pp->mem_bus_addr, pp->mem_size);
+		if (pp->mem_base != pp->mem_bus_addr) {
+			dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu(pci, PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0,
+						  PCIE_ATU_TYPE_MEM,
+						  pp->mem_base,
+						  pp->mem_bus_addr,
+						  pp->mem_size);
+		}
 		if (pci->num_viewport > 2)
 			dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu(pci, PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX2,
 						  PCIE_ATU_TYPE_IO, pp->io_base,
 						  pp->io_bus_addr, pp->io_size);
+		if (pp->prefetch_base != pp->perfetch_bus_addr &&
+		    pci->num_viewport >= 4) {
+			dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu(pci, PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX3,
+						  PCIE_ATU_TYPE_MEM,
+						  pp->prefetch_base,
+						  pp->perfetch_bus_addr,
+						  pp->prefetch_size);
+		} else {
+			dev_warn(pci->dev, "Insufficient ATU regions to map Prefetchable memory\n");
+		}
 	}
 
 	dw_pcie_wr_own_conf(pp, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, 4, 0);
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
index c92496e36fd5..87f0ab8eb954 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, u32 index, u32 reg,
 
 static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index,
 					     int type, u64 cpu_addr,
-					     u64 pci_addr, u32 size)
+					     u64 pci_addr, u64 size)
 {
 	u32 retries, val;
 	u64 limit_addr = cpu_addr + size - 1;
@@ -259,6 +259,8 @@ static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index,
 	dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(pci, index, PCIE_ATU_UNR_UPPER_TARGET,
 				 upper_32_bits(pci_addr));
 	dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(pci, index, PCIE_ATU_UNR_REGION_CTRL1,
+				 upper_32_bits(size - 1) ?
+				 type | PCIE_ATU_INCREASE_REGION_SIZE :
 				 type);
 	dw_pcie_writel_ob_unroll(pci, index, PCIE_ATU_UNR_REGION_CTRL2,
 				 PCIE_ATU_ENABLE);
@@ -279,7 +281,7 @@ static void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu_unroll(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index,
 }
 
 void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int type,
-			       u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u32 size)
+			       u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr, u64 size)
 {
 	u32 retries, val;
 
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
index c87c1b2a1177..5c21b6732755 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h
@@ -72,10 +72,12 @@
 #define PCIE_ATU_VIEWPORT		0x900
 #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INBOUND		BIT(31)
 #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_OUTBOUND	0
+#define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX3		0x3
 #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX2		0x2
 #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX1		0x1
 #define PCIE_ATU_REGION_INDEX0		0x0
 #define PCIE_ATU_CR1			0x904
+#define PCIE_ATU_INCREASE_REGION_SIZE	BIT(13)
 #define PCIE_ATU_TYPE_MEM		0x0
 #define PCIE_ATU_TYPE_IO		0x2
 #define PCIE_ATU_TYPE_CFG0		0x4
@@ -294,7 +296,7 @@ void dw_pcie_link_set_n_fts(struct dw_pcie *pci, u32 n_fts);
 int dw_pcie_wait_for_link(struct dw_pcie *pci);
 void dw_pcie_prog_outbound_atu(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index,
 			       int type, u64 cpu_addr, u64 pci_addr,
-			       u32 size);
+			       u64 size);
 int dw_pcie_prog_inbound_atu(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, int bar,
 			     u64 cpu_addr, enum dw_pcie_as_type as_type);
 void dw_pcie_disable_atu(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index,
-- 
2.17.1

RE: [PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Gustavo Pimentel]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:9:38, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:

> In this patch series,
> Patch-1
> adds required infrastructure to deal with prefetchable memory region
> information coming from 'ranges' property of the respective device-tree node
> separately from non-prefetchable memory region information.
> Patch-2
> Adds support to use ATU region-3 for establishing the mapping between CPU
> addresses and PCIe bus addresses.
> It also changes the logic to determine whether mapping is required or not by
> checking both CPU address and PCIe bus address for both prefetchable and
> non-prefetchable regions. If the addresses are same, then, it is understood
> that 1:1 mapping is in place and there is no need to setup ATU mapping
> whereas if the addresses are not the same, then, there is a need to setup ATU
> mapping. This is certainly true for Tegra194 and what I heard from our HW
> engineers is that it should generally be true for any DWC based implementation
> also.
> Hence, I request Synopsys folks (Jingoo Han & Gustavo Pimentel ??) to confirm
> the same so that this particular patch won't cause any regressions for other
> DWC based platforms.

Hi Vidya,

Unfortunately due to the COVID-19 lockdown, I can't access my development 
prototype setup to test your patch.
It might take some while until I get the possibility to get access to it 
again.

-Gustavo

> 
> Vidya Sagar (2):
>   PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately
>   PCI: dwc: Use ATU region to map prefetchable memory region
> 
>  .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 46 ++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c  |  6 ++-
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  8 +++-
>  3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.17.1

Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Vidya Sagar]

On 02-Jun-20 10:37 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:9:38, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
>> In this patch series,
>> Patch-1
>> adds required infrastructure to deal with prefetchable memory region
>> information coming from 'ranges' property of the respective device-tree node
>> separately from non-prefetchable memory region information.
>> Patch-2
>> Adds support to use ATU region-3 for establishing the mapping between CPU
>> addresses and PCIe bus addresses.
>> It also changes the logic to determine whether mapping is required or not by
>> checking both CPU address and PCIe bus address for both prefetchable and
>> non-prefetchable regions. If the addresses are same, then, it is understood
>> that 1:1 mapping is in place and there is no need to setup ATU mapping
>> whereas if the addresses are not the same, then, there is a need to setup ATU
>> mapping. This is certainly true for Tegra194 and what I heard from our HW
>> engineers is that it should generally be true for any DWC based implementation
>> also.
>> Hence, I request Synopsys folks (Jingoo Han & Gustavo Pimentel ??) to confirm
>> the same so that this particular patch won't cause any regressions for other
>> DWC based platforms.
> 
> Hi Vidya,
> 
> Unfortunately due to the COVID-19 lockdown, I can't access my development
> prototype setup to test your patch.
> It might take some while until I get the possibility to get access to it
> again.
Hi Gustavo,
Did you find time to check this?
Adding Kishon and Alan as well to take a look at this and verify on 
their platforms if possible.

Thanks,
Vidya Sagar

> 
> -Gustavo
> 
>>
>> Vidya Sagar (2):
>>    PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately
>>    PCI: dwc: Use ATU region to map prefetchable memory region
>>
>>   .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 46 ++++++++++++++-----
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c  |  6 ++-
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  8 +++-
>>   3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.17.1
> 
> 

RE: [PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Gustavo Pimentel]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 19:56:34, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 02-Jun-20 10:37 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:9:38, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In this patch series,
> >> Patch-1
> >> adds required infrastructure to deal with prefetchable memory region
> >> information coming from 'ranges' property of the respective device-tree node
> >> separately from non-prefetchable memory region information.
> >> Patch-2
> >> Adds support to use ATU region-3 for establishing the mapping between CPU
> >> addresses and PCIe bus addresses.
> >> It also changes the logic to determine whether mapping is required or not by
> >> checking both CPU address and PCIe bus address for both prefetchable and
> >> non-prefetchable regions. If the addresses are same, then, it is understood
> >> that 1:1 mapping is in place and there is no need to setup ATU mapping
> >> whereas if the addresses are not the same, then, there is a need to setup ATU
> >> mapping. This is certainly true for Tegra194 and what I heard from our HW
> >> engineers is that it should generally be true for any DWC based implementation
> >> also.
> >> Hence, I request Synopsys folks (Jingoo Han & Gustavo Pimentel ??) to confirm
> >> the same so that this particular patch won't cause any regressions for other
> >> DWC based platforms.
> > 
> > Hi Vidya,
> > 
> > Unfortunately due to the COVID-19 lockdown, I can't access my development
> > prototype setup to test your patch.
> > It might take some while until I get the possibility to get access to it
> > again.
> Hi Gustavo,
> Did you find time to check this?
> Adding Kishon and Alan as well to take a look at this and verify on 
> their platforms if possible.

My site is still in lockdown, there is no date to return to the office.
Sorry.

-Gustavo

> 
> Thanks,
> Vidya Sagar
> 
> > 
> > -Gustavo
> > 
> >>
> >> Vidya Sagar (2):
> >>    PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately
> >>    PCI: dwc: Use ATU region to map prefetchable memory region
> >>
> >>   .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 46 ++++++++++++++-----
> >>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c  |  6 ++-
> >>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  8 +++-
> >>   3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> > 
> > 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Vidya Sagar]

On 18-Jun-20 12:26 AM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02-Jun-20 10:37 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:9:38, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In this patch series,
>>> Patch-1
>>> adds required infrastructure to deal with prefetchable memory region
>>> information coming from 'ranges' property of the respective 
>>> device-tree node
>>> separately from non-prefetchable memory region information.
>>> Patch-2
>>> Adds support to use ATU region-3 for establishing the mapping between 
>>> CPU
>>> addresses and PCIe bus addresses.
>>> It also changes the logic to determine whether mapping is required or 
>>> not by
>>> checking both CPU address and PCIe bus address for both prefetchable and
>>> non-prefetchable regions. If the addresses are same, then, it is 
>>> understood
>>> that 1:1 mapping is in place and there is no need to setup ATU mapping
>>> whereas if the addresses are not the same, then, there is a need to 
>>> setup ATU
>>> mapping. This is certainly true for Tegra194 and what I heard from 
>>> our HW
>>> engineers is that it should generally be true for any DWC based 
>>> implementation
>>> also.
>>> Hence, I request Synopsys folks (Jingoo Han & Gustavo Pimentel ??) to 
>>> confirm
>>> the same so that this particular patch won't cause any regressions 
>>> for other
>>> DWC based platforms.
>>
>> Hi Vidya,
>>
>> Unfortunately due to the COVID-19 lockdown, I can't access my development
>> prototype setup to test your patch.
>> It might take some while until I get the possibility to get access to it
>> again.
> Hi Gustavo,
> Did you find time to check this?
> Adding Kishon and Alan as well to take a look at this and verify on 
> their platforms if possible.
Hi Kishon and Alan, did you find time to verify this on your respective 
platforms?

Thanks,
Vidya Sagar
> 
> Thanks,
> Vidya Sagar
> 
>>
>> -Gustavo
>>
>>>
>>> Vidya Sagar (2):
>>>    PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately
>>>    PCI: dwc: Use ATU region to map prefetchable memory region
>>>
>>>   .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-host.c | 46 ++++++++++++++-----
>>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c  |  6 ++-
>>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h  |  8 +++-
>>>   3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 2.17.1
>>
>>

Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:05:06AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18-Jun-20 12:26 AM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 02-Jun-20 10:37 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:9:38, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In this patch series,
> > > > Patch-1
> > > > adds required infrastructure to deal with prefetchable memory region
> > > > information coming from 'ranges' property of the respective
> > > > device-tree node
> > > > separately from non-prefetchable memory region information.
> > > > Patch-2
> > > > Adds support to use ATU region-3 for establishing the mapping
> > > > between CPU
> > > > addresses and PCIe bus addresses.
> > > > It also changes the logic to determine whether mapping is
> > > > required or not by
> > > > checking both CPU address and PCIe bus address for both prefetchable and
> > > > non-prefetchable regions. If the addresses are same, then, it is
> > > > understood
> > > > that 1:1 mapping is in place and there is no need to setup ATU mapping
> > > > whereas if the addresses are not the same, then, there is a need
> > > > to setup ATU
> > > > mapping. This is certainly true for Tegra194 and what I heard
> > > > from our HW
> > > > engineers is that it should generally be true for any DWC based
> > > > implementation
> > > > also.
> > > > Hence, I request Synopsys folks (Jingoo Han & Gustavo Pimentel
> > > > ??) to confirm
> > > > the same so that this particular patch won't cause any
> > > > regressions for other
> > > > DWC based platforms.
> > > 
> > > Hi Vidya,
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately due to the COVID-19 lockdown, I can't access my development
> > > prototype setup to test your patch.
> > > It might take some while until I get the possibility to get access to it
> > > again.
> > Hi Gustavo,
> > Did you find time to check this?
> > Adding Kishon and Alan as well to take a look at this and verify on
> > their platforms if possible.
> Hi Kishon and Alan, did you find time to verify this on your respective
> platforms?

Yes please. I would like to merge this code, in preparation for that
to happen mind rebasing the series against my pci/dwc branch with
Rob's suggested changes implemented ?

Thanks a lot,
Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI: dwc: Add support to handle prefetchable memory separately

[Vidya Sagar]

On 9/7/2020 10:40 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 10:05:06AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18-Jun-20 12:26 AM, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02-Jun-20 10:37 PM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
>>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 11:9:38, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In this patch series,
>>>>> Patch-1
>>>>> adds required infrastructure to deal with prefetchable memory region
>>>>> information coming from 'ranges' property of the respective
>>>>> device-tree node
>>>>> separately from non-prefetchable memory region information.
>>>>> Patch-2
>>>>> Adds support to use ATU region-3 for establishing the mapping
>>>>> between CPU
>>>>> addresses and PCIe bus addresses.
>>>>> It also changes the logic to determine whether mapping is
>>>>> required or not by
>>>>> checking both CPU address and PCIe bus address for both prefetchable and
>>>>> non-prefetchable regions. If the addresses are same, then, it is
>>>>> understood
>>>>> that 1:1 mapping is in place and there is no need to setup ATU mapping
>>>>> whereas if the addresses are not the same, then, there is a need
>>>>> to setup ATU
>>>>> mapping. This is certainly true for Tegra194 and what I heard
>>>>> from our HW
>>>>> engineers is that it should generally be true for any DWC based
>>>>> implementation
>>>>> also.
>>>>> Hence, I request Synopsys folks (Jingoo Han & Gustavo Pimentel
>>>>> ??) to confirm
>>>>> the same so that this particular patch won't cause any
>>>>> regressions for other
>>>>> DWC based platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Vidya,
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately due to the COVID-19 lockdown, I can't access my development
>>>> prototype setup to test your patch.
>>>> It might take some while until I get the possibility to get access to it
>>>> again.
>>> Hi Gustavo,
>>> Did you find time to check this?
>>> Adding Kishon and Alan as well to take a look at this and verify on
>>> their platforms if possible.
>> Hi Kishon and Alan, did you find time to verify this on your respective
>> platforms?
> 
> Yes please. I would like to merge this code, in preparation for that
> to happen mind rebasing the series against my pci/dwc branch with
> Rob's suggested changes implemented ?
Hi,
Apologies for the delay in reply. I was on leave and couldn't really 
look into it.
I pushed a new patch on top of your pci/dwc branch at 
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pci/patch/20201005121351.32516-1-vidyas@nvidia.com/

@Rob and @Lorenzo, please review it.
Since I changed the subject, I pushed it as a new patch and not as V2 of 
the previous patch set. I hope this is fine.

Thanks,
Vidya Sagar

> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Lorenzo
>