Message-ID: <CAL_JsqL4xY-k4ZsJDuxX6Wbevv+aNRki4WfeiXg0R-4NkqPC1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:28:02 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@...inx.com>,
        Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@...inx.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] add fwnode support to reset subsystem

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:11 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:52 AM Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Le Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:47:20 -0500,
> > Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> a écrit :
> >
> > > + some Xilinx folks
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 09:24:34AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> > > > Le Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:41:37 -0500,
> > > > Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 03:12:34PM +0100, Clément Léger wrote:
> > > > > > This series is part of a larger series which aims at adding fwnode
> > > > > > support in multiple subsystems [1]. The goal of this series was to
> > > > > > add support for software node in various subsystem but in a first
> > > > > > time only the fwnode support had gained consensus and will be added
> > > > > > to multiple subsystems.
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal is describing a solution. What is the problem?
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the scenario where you have a reset provider not described by
> > > > > firmware providing resets to devices (consumers) also not described by
> > > > > firmware.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rob, there was a link attached to this series since there was a
> > > > previous one that was sent which described the problem. Here is a link
> > > > to the same thread but to a specific message which clarifies the
> > > > problem and the solutions that were mentionned by other maintainers
> > > > (ACPI overlays, DT overlays, software nodes and so on):
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220224154040.2633a4e4@fixe.home/
> > >
> > > Thanks, but your commit message should explain the problem. The problem
> > > is not subsystems don't support fwnode.
> > >
> > > This is the exact same problem the Xilinx folks are trying to solve with
> > > their PCIe FPGA cards[1] (and that is not really a v1). They need to
> > > describe h/w downstream from a 'discoverable' device. Their case is
> > > further complicated with the dynamic nature of FPGAs. It's also not just
> > > PCIe. Another usecase is describing downstream devices on USB FTDI
> > > serial chips which can have GPIO, I2C, SPI downstream. And then you want
> > > to plug in 10 of those.
> >
> > I also tried loading an overlay from a driver on an ACPI based system.
> > Their patch is (I guess) targeting the specific problem that there is
> > no base DT when using ACPI. However, Mark Brown feedback was not to
> > mix OF and ACPI:
>
> I agree there. I don't think we should use DT bindings in ACPI tables
> which is already happening. In this case, I think what's described by
> ACPI and DT must be completely disjoint. I think that's the case here
> as everything is downstream of the PCIe device.
>
> > "That seems like it's opening a can of worms that might be best left
> > closed."
> >
> > But I would be interested to know how the Xilinx guys are doing that
> > on x86/ACPI based system.
>
> They aren't, yet...
>
>
> > > I don't think swnodes are going to scale for these usecases. We moved
> > > h/w description out of the kernel for a reason. Why are we adding that
> > > back in a new form? The complexity for what folks want to describe is
> > > only going to increase.
> > >
> > > I think DT overlays is the right (or only) solution here. Of course the
> > > DT maintainer would say that. Actually, I would be happier to not have
> > > to support overlays in the kernel.
> >
> > DT overlay might work on DT based system. If I'm going to plug the card
> > on an ACPI based platform (x86), I also want that card to work
> > seamlessly without requiring the user to create an ACPI overlay.
>
> I agree, it should work the same way for the user.
>
> > If you proposal was to use DT overlays on an ACPI based system, doing
> > so would also require to "plug" the PCI subystem when described with
> > ACPI to "probe" DT overlays describing PCI devices, not sure this is
> > something trivial and it would be PCI centric.
>
> Yes, this is the 2nd part I describe. I don't think there's any way to
> avoid this being bus specific because bus specific nodes have to be
> created.
>
>
> > > I've told the Xilinx folks the same thing, but I would separate this
> > > into 2 parts. First is just h/w work in a DT based system. Second is
> > > creating a base tree an overlay can be applied to. The first part should
> > > be pretty straightforward. We already have PCI bus bindings. The only
> > > tricky part is getting address translation working from leaf device thru
> > > the PCI bus to host bus, but support for that should all be in place
> > > (given we support ISA buses off of PCI bus). The second part will
> > > require generating PCI DT nodes at runtime. That may be needed for both
> > > DT and ACPI systems as we don't always describe all the PCI hierarchy
> > > in DT.
> >
> > But then, if the driver generate the nodes, it will most probably
> > have to describe the nodes by hardcoding them right ?
>
> No, the kernel already maintains its own tree of devices. You just
> need to use that to generate the tree. That's really not much more
> than nodes with a 'reg' property encoding the device and function
> numbers.
>
> We already support matching a PCI device to a DT node. The PCI
> subsystem checks if there is a corresponding DT node for each PCI
> device created and sets the of_node pointer if there is. For
> OpenFirmware systems (PPC), there always is a node. For FDT, we
> generally don't have a node unless there are additional
> non-discoverable properties. Hikey960 is an example with PCI device
> nodes in the DT as it has a soldered down PCIe switch with downstream
> devices and non-discoverable properties (e.g. reset GPIO for each
> port).

Here's a quick and dirty implementation creating DT nodes for PCI devices:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git dt/pop-pci-nodes

Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists