[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250312220424.GA711004@bhelgaas>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 17:04:24 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@....com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 08/10] PCI: dwc: Print warning message when
cpu_addr_fixup() exists
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 04:16:46PM -0400, Frank Li wrote:
> If the parent 'ranges' property in DT correctly describes the address
> translation, the cpu_addr_fixup() callback is not needed. Print a warning
> message to inform users to correct their DT files.
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> @@ -1125,6 +1125,8 @@ int dw_pcie_init_parent_bus_offset(struct dw_pcie *pci, const char *reg_name,
>
> fixup = pci->ops->cpu_addr_fixup;
> if (fixup) {
> + dev_warn_once(pci->dev, "cpu_addr_fixup() usage detected. Please fix DT!\n");
I don't think we need this. The mere presence of .cpu_addr_fixup()
doesn't tell us the DT is broken. When we have .cpu_addr_fixup(), the
DT is only broken if DT tells us something different than
.cpu_addr_fixup() tells us. And we already warn about that in the
"reg_addr != fixup_addr" case.
> +
> fixup_addr = fixup(pci, cpu_phy_addr);
> if (reg_addr == fixup_addr) {
> dev_info(dev, "%#010llx %s reg[%d] == %#010llx; %ps is redundant\n",
This message is really just a hint that DT is fine and
.cpu_addr_fixup() is redundant but harmless. If you want a dev_warn()
here to encourage people to remove .cpu_addr_fixup(), I'm fine with
that.
Seems like "dev_warn()" would be enough, probably no need for
"dev_warn_once()" since we should only run this once per controller
anyway, so I don't think we'll get spammed with messages.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists