On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 06:19:25PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Marek Vasut marek.vasut@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/14/2018 11:40 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
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.
It can support parsing subnodes with a "compatible" string existence AND It can NOT support parsing subnodes without a "compatible" string existence THUS It is incomplete.
> - 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.
But then every patch which changes the behavior is against "the design" and thus is a hack. Ultimately, most improvements would be considered a hack.
No it depends. For this case, there are two options that DM PCI currently provides. You created a 3rd option that bring option 1 and 2 together in a mixed way, yet without any documenting and additional other changes. If you posted such changes in a series and have all stuff well considered, I would not consider it a hack, but a proposed design change.
Also, the design document is not immutable and can and should be updated as needed to match changes in the code.