[PATCH 1/2] pci: Add IORESOURCE_BIT entry for PCIe ECAM resources.

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:21:10 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 June 2014 09:44:59 Grant Likely wrote:
> > > The reason I think allow an ECAM makes sense in ranges is because it allows for a direct IO read/write to CFG space (w/o any mapping) similar to what one would do for MEM space or IO.
> > 
> > I don't think that's right. PCI addresses are defined as follows:
> > phys.hi cell: npt000ss bbbbbbbb dddddfff rrrrrrrr
> > phys.mid cell: hhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh
> > phys.low cell: llllllll llllllll llllllll llllllll
> > 
> > where 'ddddd' is the device number (0-31) and 'fff' is the function number (0-7)
> > 
> > Going up by one device number or even function number does not result in
> > contiguious address values:
> > 
> > device 0: 0x00000000 00000000 00000000
> > device 1: 0x00000800 00000000 00000000
> > device 2: 0x00001000 00000000 00000000
> > device 3: 0x00001800 00000000 00000000
> > ...
> > device 30:0x0000f000 00000000 00000000
> > device 31:0x0000f800 00000000 00000000
> > 
> > a simple ranges doesn't work transparently because each of those config
> > ranges needs to be mapped to a 4k block. I think ranges would need to
> > look like this:
> > 
> > ranges = <0x00000000 0 0  0x0ff00000  0x1000>,
> >          <0x00000800 0 0  0x0ff01000  0x1000>,
> >          <0x00001800 0 0  0x0ff02000  0x1000>,
> >          ...
> >          <0x0000f000 0 0  0x0ff1e000  0x1000>,
> >          <0x0000f800 0 0  0x0ff1f000  0x1000>;
> > 
> > (I just hacked the above up; I make no claims to it's accuracy for
> > actual address values)
> > 
> > But I don't even thing the semantics work there because the address is
> > encoded in the phys.hi cell, not the phys.low cell. Incrementing by one
> > does not behaves as most bus addresses work. To actually work properly
> > we would have needed a way to define a stride of 64bits when
> > incrementing config space addresses in a ranges mapping.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up. I always suspected it was roughly this
> way, but never managed to think it through completely before getting
> distracted by something else.
> 
> I wonder if the OF definition matches CAM though, if not ECAM, as
> CAM is also limited to 256 byte config space per function.

It's the same problem for 256 byte entries. The address values don't
increment nicely and there is a big block of remapping needed.

g.