linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dm: pci: Assign controller device node to root bridge

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <954083bf13bd7c24c31c9673269ea0eedb925f43.camel@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:15:16 +0200
From:   Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
To:     Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
Cc:     Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>,
        U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@...ts.denx.de>,
        Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...il.com>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
        lk <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dm: pci: Assign controller device node to root
 bridge

On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 17:31 -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 08:09, Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 07:43 -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Nicolas,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 10:47, Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> > > <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de> wrote:
> > > > There is no distinction in DT between the PCI controller device and the
> > > > root bridge, whereas such distinction exists from dm's perspective. Make
> > > > sure the root bridge ofnode is assigned to the controller's platform
> > > > device node.
> > > >
> > > > This permits setups like this to work correctly:
> > > >
> > > >         pcie {
> > > >                 compatible = "...";
> > > >                 ...
> > > >                 dev {
> > > >                         reg = <0 0 0 0 0>;
> > > >                         ...
> > > >                 };
> > > >         };
> > > >
> > > > Without this the dev node is assigned to the root bridge and the
> > > > actual device search starts one level lower than expected.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Can you update the tests to handle this case please?
> >
> > I'd be glad to, but I'm not familiar with the test FW in u-booy, coud give
> > me
> > some pointers on where/how to test this?
> >
>
> Yes it is at test/dm/pci.c and the device tree is test.dts
>
> 'make qcheck' to run all tests. To run one test, build for sandbox and
> then something like
>
> u-boot -T -c "ut dm pci_swapcase"
>
> for example.
>
> You can perhaps use an existing PCI controller in test.dts but feel
> free to add one more if you need it for your test. Make sure that you
> don't break other tests.

Thanks for the info.

Actually adding the tests made me doubleguess myself, and now I'm pretty sure
that what I shoudl've done in DT is the following:

	&pcie0 {
	       pci@0 {
		       #address-cells = <3>;
		       #size-cells = <2>;
		       ranges;

		       reg = <0 0 0 0 0>;

		       usb@1,0 {
			       reg = <0x10000 0 0 0 0>;
			       resets = <&reset RASPBERRYPI_FIRMWARE_RESET_ID_USB>;
		       };
	       };
	};


(with "lspci -tv": [0000:00]---00.0-[01]----00.0  VIA Technologies, Inc. VL805 USB 3.0 Host Controller)

With this the patch above isn't needed, which is great.

I'll send this to upstream Linux just to get a confirmation this is correct,
although if you have any comments it'll be appreciated.

Regards,
Nicolas


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)