Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 17:51:44 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:     Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com" <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        "jingoohan1@...il.com" <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] PCI: endpoint: functions/pci-epf-test: Add second
 entry

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:39:00AM +0100, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
> 
> On 01/05/2018 15:26, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 05:53:59PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >> Hi Lorenzo,
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 01 May 2018 05:24 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:37:47PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lorenzo,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thursday 26 April 2018 10:26 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:44:40PM +0100, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
> >>>>>> Adds a seconds entry on the pci_epf_test_ids structure that disables the
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Add a second entry to..."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> linkup_notifier parameter on driver for the designware EP.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This allows designware EPs that doesn't have linkup notification signal
> >>>>>> to work with pcitest.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Updates the binding documentation accordingly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Valid for all the series: use imperative sentences.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> eg:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Update the binding documentation accordingly".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Updates the binding documentation accordingly".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>
> >>>>>> Acked-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> Change v2->v3:
> >>>>>>  - Added second entry in pci_epf_test_ids structure.
> >>>>>>  - Remove test_reg_bar field assignment on second entry.
> >>>>>> Changes v3->v4:
> >>>>>>  - Nothing changed, just to follow the patch set version.
> >>>>>> Changes v4->v5:
> >>>>>>  - Changed pci_epf_test_cfg2 to pci_epf_test_designware.
> >>>>>> Changes v5->v6:
> >>>>>>  - Changed name field from pci_epf_test_designware to pci_epf_test_dw.
> >>>>>> Changes v6->v7:
> >>>>>>  - Changed variable name from data_cfg2 to data_linkup_notifier_disabled.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt | 2 ++
> >>>>>>  drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c            | 8 ++++++++
> >>>>>>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt b/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> >>>>>> index 3b68b95..dc39f47 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/PCI/endpoint/function/binding/pci-test.txt
> >>>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
> >>>>>>  PCI TEST ENDPOINT FUNCTION
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>  name: Should be "pci_epf_test" to bind to the pci_epf_test driver.
> >>>>>> +name: Should be "pci_epf_test_dw" to bind to the pci_epf_test driver
> >>>>>> +      with a custom configuration for the designware EP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The link between the "name" and the device created is quite obscure and
> >>>>> reading pci-test-howto.txt certainly does not clarify it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In pci-test-howto.txt an explanation should be added to the configs
> >>>>> device creation paragraph to clarify it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>  Configurable Fields:
> >>>>>>  vendorid	 : should be 0x104c
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> >>>>>> index 7cef851..4ab463b 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c
> >>>>>> @@ -459,10 +459,18 @@ static int pci_epf_test_bind(struct pci_epf *epf)
> >>>>>>  	return 0;
> >>>>>>  }
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> +static const struct pci_epf_test_data data_linkup_notifier_disabled = {
> >>>>>> +	.linkup_notifier = false
> >>>>>> +};
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>>  static const struct pci_epf_device_id pci_epf_test_ids[] = {
> >>>>>>  	{
> >>>>>>  		.name = "pci_epf_test",
> >>>>>>  	},
> >>>>>> +	{
> >>>>>> +		.name = "pci_epf_test_dw",
> >>>>>> +		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)&data_linkup_notifier_disabled,
> >>>>>> +	},
> >>>>>>  	{},
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should not this be a property derived from the controller compatible
> >>>>> property instead of the test device name written in configfs ?
> >>>>
> >>>> pci_epf_test is an independent driver on its own that operates in a layer above
> >>>> the controller driver. So it does not get the controller compatible (which is
> >>>> used in controller drivers like pcie-designware-plat.c). pci_epf_test uses
> >>>> "pci_epf_device_id" which is _similar_ to "of_device_id" used by platform drivers.
> >>>
> >>> I understand that, the problem is that the independent driver depends on
> >>> features of the related controller driver as this patch shows. This
> >>> patch basically says that if you use a specific path in configfs (that
> >>> includes pci_epf_test_dw) your device has specific HW features (eg
> >>> linkup notifier above), that obviously depends on the platform HW not on
> >>> the string you use in configfs.
> >>>
> >>> What I am questioning is a) if I understand this right and b) whether
> >>> this is the right approach.
> >>
> >> Your understanding is right. Ideally pci-epf-test driver shouldn't have any HW
> >> specific configuration. But different HW have different configurations and
> >> pci-epf-test should be informed of the configuration the HW supports.
> > 
> > I am honestly very confused. First off, I do not understand what this
> > patch really does (or better what DW can't do so that it needs a
> > specific configfs string and therefore a specific configuration).
> > 
> > What's the purpose of the linkup notifier ? What does it mean that
> > the DW HW can't handle it ?
> > 
> > Are we referring to the pci_epf_linkup() function ?
> > 
> > If it is a HW configuration (ie the DW HW does not have a signal to
> > report that the link is up ?) its enablement must depend on HW
> > controller properties not configfs entries, I do not like what this
> > patch does (probably because I am confused and I do not understand it).
> > 
> > Please let me know your thoughts on this, thanks.
> 
> On my setup, the EP is unable generate a signal which is responsible
> for notify that the link is established, being therefore necessary to
> emulate it, this is done by setting the linkup_notifier variable to
> false.

What I do not understand is why the workqueue notification can't be called
irrespective of the linkup notifier value from pci_epf_test_bind(),
what's the point in calling it earlier with pci_epf_linkup() (or the
other way around why is it safe to call it a bind() time if there
is no notification available - which is the DW case).

[...]

> Since the linkup notifier and BAR index (where auxiliary registers are
> located) may be configurable and is something platform dependent,
> perhaps the configuration of this variables should be done by module
> parameter and not by configfs, leaving this configuration
> responsibility in charge of each platform.

They are platform dependent because they depend on the EP controller.
That's why I said that those are EP controller parameters. I do not
think they are module parameters either - they should be part of HW
description in firmware.

Lorenzo

> I think this option is also a good alternative, simple and clean. What
> do you think?
> 
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Kishon
> 
> Regards,
> Gustavo
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists