[PATCH 10/14] PCI: tegra: Move PCIe driver to drivers/pci/host
andrew.murray at arm.com
Thu Jan 17 11:22:18 EST 2013
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 04:05:02PM +0000, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 03:42:36PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:31:01PM +0000, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > Alright, putting the functions into pci_ops doesn't sound like a very
> > > good idea then. Or perhaps it would make sense for hardware where the
> > > root complex and the MSI controller are handled by the same driver.
> > > Basically it could be done as a shortcut and if those are not filled
> > > in, the drivers could still opt to look up an MSI controller from a
> > > phandle specified in DT.
> > >
> > > Even another alternative would be to keep the functions within the
> > > struct pci_ops and use generic ones if an external MSI controller is
> > > used. Just tossing around ideas.
> > I think an ideal solution would be for additional logic in drivers/msi.c
> > (e.g. in functions like msi_capability_init) to determine (based on the
> > passed in pci_dev) which MSI controller ops to use. I'm not sure the best
> > way to implement an association between an MSI controller and PCI busses
> > (I believe arch/sparc does something like this - perhaps there will be
> > inspiration there).
> > As you've pointed out, most RCs will have their own MSI controllers - so
> > it should be easy to register and associate both together.
> > I've submitted my previous work on MSI controller registration, but it
> > doesn't quite solve this problem - perhaps it can be a starting point?
> We basically have two cases:
> - The PCI host bridge contains registers for MSI support. In that case
> it makes little sense to uncouple the MSI implementation from the
> host bridge driver.
> - An MSI controller exists outside of the PCI host bridge. The PCI
> host bridge would in that case have to lookup an MSI controller (via
> DT phandle or some other method).
> In either of those cases, does it make sense to use the MSI support
> outside the scope of the PCI infrastructure? That is, would devices
> other than PCI devices be able to generate an MSI?
I've come around to your way of thinking. Your approach sounds good for
registration of MSI ops - let the RC host driver do it (it probably has its
own), or use a helper for following a phandle to get ops that are not part
of the driver. MSIs won't be used outside of PCI devices.
Though existing drivers will use MSI framework functions to request MSIs, that
will result in callbacks to the arch_setup_msi_irqs type functions. These
functions would need to be updated to find these new ops if they exist, i.e. by
traversing the pci_dev structure up to the RC and finding a suitable structure.
Perhaps the msi ops could live alongside pci_ops in the pci_bus structure. This
way when traversing up the buses from the provided pci_dev - the first bus with
msi ops populated would be used?
If no ops are found, the standard arch callbacks can be called - thus preserving
More information about the linux-arm-kernel