Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:28:06 +0000
From:   Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:     "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lorenzo.pieralisi@....com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        "minyard@....org" <minyard@....org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yuanzhichang <yuanzhichang@...ilicon.com>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "zourongrong@...il.com" <zourongrong@...il.com>,
        "liviu.dudau@....com" <liviu.dudau@....com>,
        "kantyzc@....com" <kantyzc@....com>,
        "zhichang.yuan02@...il.com" <zhichang.yuan02@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 2/4] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@...db.de]
> Sent: 15 September 2016 13:25
> To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; devicetree@...r.kernel.org;
> lorenzo.pieralisi@....com; minyard@....org; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org;
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; John Garry; will.deacon@....com; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; Yuanzhichang; Linuxarm; xuwei (O); linux-
> serial@...r.kernel.org; benh@...nel.crashing.org;
> zourongrong@...il.com; liviu.dudau@....com; kantyzc@....com;
> zhichang.yuan02@...il.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on
> Hip06
> 
> On Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:05:51 PM CEST Gabriele Paoloni
> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:02:27 AM CEST Gabriele Paoloni
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From <<3.1.1. Open Firmware Properties for Bus Nodes>> in
> > > > http://www.firmware.org/1275/bindings/isa/isa0_4d.ps
> > > >
> > > > I quote:
> > > > "There shall be an entry in the "ranges" property for each
> > > > of the Memory and/or I/O spaces if that address space is
> > > > mapped through the bridge."
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that it is ok to have 1:1 address mapping and that
> > > > therefore of_translate_address() should fail if "ranges" is not
> > > > present.
> > >
> > > The key here is the definition of "mapped through the bridge".
> > > I can only understand this as "directly mapped", i.e. an I/O
> > > port of the child bus corresponds directly to a memory address
> > > on the parent bus, but this is not the case here.
> > >
> > > The problem with adding the mapping here is that it looks
> > > like it should be valid to create a page table entry for
> > > the address returned from the translation and access it through
> > > a pointer dereference, but that is clearly not possible.
> >
> > I understand that somehow we are abusing of the ranges property
> > here however the point is that with the current implementation ranges
> > is needed because otherwise the ipmi driver probe will fail here:
> >
> > of_ipmi_probe -> of_address_to_resource -> __of_address_to_resource
> > -> of_translate_address -> __of_translate_address
> >
> > Now we had a bit of discussion internally and to avoid
> > having ranges we came up with two possible solutions:
> >
> > 1) Using bit 3 of phys.hi cell in 2.2.1 of
> > http://www.firmware.org/1275/bindings/isa/isa0_4d.ps
> > This would mean reworking of_bus_isa_get_flags in
> > http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/of/address.c#L398
> > and setting a new flag to be checked in __of_address_to_resource
> >
> > 2) Adding a property in the bindings of each device that is
> > a child of our LPC bus and modify __of_address_to_resource
> > to check if the property is in the DT and eventually bypass
> > of_translate_address
> >
> > However in both 1) and 2) there are some issues:
> > in 1) we are not complying with the isa binding doc (we use
> > a bit that should be zero); in 2) we need to modify the
> > bindings documentation of the devices that are connected
> > to our LPC controller (therefore modifying other devices
> > bindings to fit our special case).
> >
> > I think that maybe having the 1:1 range mapping doesn't
> > reflect well the reality but it is the less painful
> > solution...
> >
> > What's your view?
> 
> We can check the 'i' bit for I/O space in of_bus_isa_get_flags,
> and that should be enough to translate the I/O port number.
> 
> The only part we need to change here is to not go through
> the crazy conversion all the way from PCI I/O space to a
> physical address and back to a (logical) port number
> that we do today with of_translate_address/pci_address_to_pio.
> 
> I can think of a several of ways to fix __of_address_to_resource
> to just do the right thing according to the ISA binding to
> make the normal drivers work.
> 
> The easiest solution is probably to hook into the
> "taddr == OF_BAD_ADDR" case in __of_address_to_resource
> and add a lookup for ISA buses there, and instead check
> if some special I/O port operations were registered
> for the port number, using an architecture specific
> function that arm64 implements. Other architectures
> like x86 that don't have a direct mapping between I/O
> ports and MMIO addresses would implement that same
> function differently.

So with respect to this patchset once we enter the
"taddr == OF_BAD_ADDR" case you would add an arch
specific function that checks if the resource is an I/O 
resource, if the parent node is an ISA bus (calling 
of_bus_isa_match) and if arm64_extio_ops is non NULL. 
 
I think it can work for us and it doesn't affect current
devices. I will talk to Zhichang about this for the next
patchset version.

Many Thanks for your ideas

Gab


> 
> 	Arnd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists