[PATCH v3] pcie: Add Xilinx PCIe Host Bridge IP driver

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 15 April 2014, Srikanth Thokala wrote:
> +Required properties:
> +- #address-cells: Address representation for root ports, set to <3>
> +- #size-cells: Size representation for root ports, set to <2>
> +- #interrupt-cells: specifies the number of cells needed to encode an
> +	interrupt source. The value must be 1.
> +- compatible: Should contain "xlnx,axi-pcie-host-1.00.a"
> +- reg: Should contain AXI PCIe registers location and length
> +- device_type: must be "pci"
> +- interrupts: Should contain AXI PCIe interrupt
> +- interrupt-map-mask,
> +  interrupt-map: standard PCI properties to define the mapping of the
> +	PCI interface to interrupt numbers.
> +- ranges: ranges for the PCI memory regions (I/O space region is noti

typo: noti -> not

> +	supported by hardware)
> +	Please refer to the standard PCI bus binding document for a more
> +	detailed explanation
> +
> +Optional properties:
> +- bus-range: PCI bus numbers covered
> +
> +Interrupt controller child node
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +Required properties:
> +- interrupt-controller: identifies the node as an interrupt controller
> +- #address-cells: specifies the number of cells needed to encode an
> +	address. The value must be 0.
> +- #interrupt-cells: specifies the number of cells needed to encode an
> +	interrupt source. The value must be 1.
> +
> +NOTE:
> +The core provides a single interrupt for both INTx/MSI messages. So,
> +created a interrupt controller node to support 'interrupt-map' DT
> +functionality.  The driver will create an IRQ domain for this map, decode
> +the four INTx interrupts in ISR and route them to this domain.

How does this work if the pci core is combined with a GIC version that
also has MSI support. Presumably you'd want to use that for performance
reason rather than the integrated MSI chip.

Shouldn't there be a way to pick between the two?

> +/**
> + * xilinx_pcie_get_config_base - Get configuration base
> + * @bus: Bus structure of current bus
> + * @devfn: Device/function
> + * @where: Offset from base
> + *
> + * Return: Base address of the configuration space needed to be
> + *	   accessed.
> + */
> +static void __iomem *xilinx_pcie_get_config_base(struct pci_bus *bus,
> +						 unsigned int devfn,
> +						 int where)
> +{
> +	struct xilinx_pcie_port *port = sys_to_pcie(bus->sysdata);
> +	int relbus;
> +
> +	relbus = (bus->number << ECAM_BUS_NUM_SHIFT) |
> +		 (devfn << ECAM_DEV_NUM_SHIFT);
> +
> +	return port->reg_base + relbus + where;
> +}

Does this mean you have an ECAM-compliant config space? Nice!

Would it be possible to split the config space access out into
a separate file? It would be nice to share that with the generic
ECAM driver that Will Deacon has sent.

> +
> +	msg.address_hi = 0;
> +	msg.address_lo = virt_to_phys((void *)port->msg_addr);
> +	msg.data = irq;
> +
> +	write_msi_msg(irq, &msg);

It seems strange to pass the msg_addr as an integer referring to
a virtual address. I'd suggest using phys_addr_t for the type
and converting it at the point the page gets allocated, and then
always assigning both the high and low part here. You'll need
that anyway for 64-bit operation.

> +/**
> + * xilinx_pcie_enable_msi - Enable MSI support
> + * @port: PCIe port information
> + */
> +static void xilinx_pcie_enable_msi(struct xilinx_pcie_port *port)
> +{
> +	port->msg_addr = __get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL, 0);
> +
> +	pcie_write(port, 0x0, XILINX_PCIE_REG_MSIBASE1);
> +	pcie_write(port, virt_to_phys((void *)port->msg_addr),
> +		   XILINX_PCIE_REG_MSIBASE2);
> +}

here too.

As a general comment about the MSI implementation, I wonder if this is actually
generic enough to be shared with other host controllers. It could be moved
into a separate file like the config space access in that case.

> +/**
> + * xilinx_pcie_init_irq_domain - Initialize IRQ domain
> + * @port: PCIe port information
> + *
> + * Return: '0' on success and error value on failure
> + */
> +static int xilinx_pcie_init_irq_domain(struct xilinx_pcie_port *port)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = port->dev;
> +	struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
> +
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)) {
> +		/* Setup MSI */
> +		int i;
> +
> +		port->irq_domain = irq_domain_add_linear(node,
> +							 XILINX_NUM_MSI_IRQS,
> +							 &msi_domain_ops,
> +							 &xilinx_pcie_msi_chip);
> +		if (!port->irq_domain) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "Failed to get a MSI IRQ domain\n");
> +			return PTR_ERR(port->irq_domain);
> +		}
> +
> +		for (i = 0; i < XILINX_NUM_MSI_IRQS; i++)
> +			irq_create_mapping(port->irq_domain, i);

I'm still not that familiar with the irqdomain code, but shouldn't you
do the irq_create_mapping() in xilinx_pcie_assign_msi()?

It seems wasteful to create all 128 mappings upfront.

> +/**
> + * xilinx_pcie_setup - Setup memory resources
> + * @nr: Bus number
> + * @sys: Per controller structure
> + *
> + * Return: '1' on success and error value on failure
> + */
> +static int xilinx_pcie_setup(int nr, struct pci_sys_data *sys)
> +{

I think if you move most of the code from this function into the probe()
function, it will be easier later to add arm64 support, and you can handle
errors better.

AFAICT, the only thing you need here is to list_move() the resources
from the xilinx_pcie_port to sys->resources. Ideally, the entire range
parsing can go away soon, once we have generic infrastructure for that.


> +	/* Register the device */
> +	pci_common_init_dev(dev, &hw);
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, port);

Don't you have to do the platform_set_drvdata() before pci_common_init_dev()?

	Arnd