[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54BE4991.5040505@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:26:57 +0100
From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"wangyijing@...wei.com" <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v7 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional
for ACPI on ARM64
On 20.01.2015 12:00, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 02:39:16AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015年01月19日 18:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 06:25:53AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> On 2015年01月16日 17:49, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:04:54PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c
>>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/init.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/io.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>>> @@ -68,3 +69,30 @@ void pci_bus_assign_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus, struct device *parent)
>>>>>> bus->domain_nr = domain;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * raw_pci_read/write - Platform-specific PCI config space access.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Default empty implementation. Replace with an architecture-specific setup
>>>>>> + * routine, if necessary.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus,
>>>>>> + unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 *val)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus,
>>>>>> + unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 val)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>>> +/* Root bridge scanning */
>>>>>> +struct pci_bus *pci_acpi_scan_root(struct acpi_pci_root *root)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + /* TODO: Should be revisited when implementing PCI on ACPI */
>>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +#endif
>>> [...]
>>>>> When PCI is enabled and the above functions are compiled in, do they
>>>>> need to return any useful data or just -EINVAL. Are they ever called?
>>>>
>>>> They will be called if PCI root bridge is defined in DSDT, should I
>>>> print some warning message before it is implemented?
>>>
>>> My point: do they need to return real data when a PCI root bridge is
>>> defined in DSDT or you always expect them to always return some -E*? Can
>>> you explain why?
>>
>> Not always return -E* or NULL;
>>
>> For raw_pci_read/write(), they are needed to access the PCI config space
>> before the PCI root bus is created. so they will return 0 if access to
>> PCI config space is ok; pci_acpi_scan_root() will return root bus
>> pointer if it is successfully created.
>
> OK. So what's the plan for implementing these functions properly. For
> the raw_pci_read/write, the comment states "replace with an
> architecture-specific setup routine". What does this mean?
raw_pci_read/write will use MMCONFIG code to access PCI config space.
Please see my patch set:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1411.2/02753.html
which is going to refactor the x86 specific code so it would be usable
for ARM64 too.
>
> For pci_acpi_scan_root(), at least the comment states a "TODO". Is there
> anyone working on this or we don't expect servers with PCIe soon?
>
We do, Cavium, AMD and APM boards have PCIe.
Me and Mark Salter have posted initial support for ACPI PCI probe:
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1411.0/05026.html
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-acpi/2014-November/002970.html
Regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists