[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220105154955.lxhnhjgjsiwhuffq@pali>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:49:55 +0100
From: Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] PCI: mvebu: Use child_ops API
On Wednesday 05 January 2022 09:41:51 Rob Herring wrote:
> > @@ -347,6 +375,11 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_hw_wr_conf(struct mvebu_pcie_port *port,
> > return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > }
> >
> > +static struct pci_ops mvebu_pcie_child_ops = {
> > + .read = mvebu_pcie_child_rd_conf,
> > + .write = mvebu_pcie_child_wr_conf,
> > +};
> > +
> > /*
> > * Remove windows, starting from the largest ones to the smallest
> > * ones.
> > @@ -862,25 +895,12 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_wr_conf(struct pci_bus *bus, u32 devfn,
> > {
> > struct mvebu_pcie *pcie = bus->sysdata;
> > struct mvebu_pcie_port *port;
> > - int ret;
> >
> > port = mvebu_pcie_find_port(pcie, bus, devfn);
> > if (!port)
> > return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
>
> It would be nice to go from 'bus' to 'bridge' ptr directly, but I
> still had this in my version. I guess a standard RP struct as part of
> decoupling host bridges from RPs would solve this issue.
Hello!
The problem is somewhere else. This driver is misusing bus 0 for doing
non-transparent bus-bridging between multiple PCI domains by registering
roots ports across all domains into domain 0, bus 0. All details are
in this my patch which documents this strange driver behavior:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211125124605.25915-12-pali@kernel.org/
So the correct solution is is split these multidomain mixing and then
every domain would have exactly one root port (as it is designed in HW).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists