[PATCH v7 01/10] PCI: host: rcar: Add Renesas R-Car PCIe driver
phil.edworthy at renesas.com
Tue May 6 03:46:22 PDT 2014
On 01 May 2014 17:50, Jason wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:50:56AM +0000, Phil Edworthy wrote:
> > > The logic should be:
> > > if (bus == primary)
> > > do io access to host bridge
> > > else if (bus == secondary)
> > > issue type 0 TLP on the wire
> > > else if (bus > secondary && bus <= subordinate)
> > > issue type 1 TLP on the wire
> > > else
> > > fail, invalid bus number
> > > Where the three values come from the register in the PCI host bridge's
> > > configuration space, and are kept in sync with the programming from
> > > the Linux PCI core.
> > >
> > > It is just a happy hapenstance that root_bus_nr equals the value the
> > > PCI core programmed into secondary - that is not guarenteed, you must
> > > use the primary value directly.
> > For type0 TLPs, we are not checking that root_bus_nr equals the
> > value the PCI core programmed into secondary, we are checking that
> > the (root_bus_nr == bus->parent->number). The only way this wouldn't
> > work is if root_bus_nr was not the root bus number.
> Okay, that isn't as sketchy, but that process still ignores the
> subordinate bus number and the failure case as required by PCI.
> The goal here is to have the stuff below the drivers implement the PCI
> spec so that the core code can assume everything below is
> conformant. Drivers should not introduce gratuitous differences 'just
> There is no reason drivers should be using PCI core structures to make
> decisions when the spec says those decisions are driven by config
> space fields.
> This way the PCI core code doesn't have to be aware of any weird
> non-standard edge cases.. Such as not failing bus numbers beyond the
> subordinate bus number.
> > Since the Synopsys DW driver also saves off sys->busnr and later
> > uses this to determine if accesses are for the host bridge, I guess
> > that means it won't always work either, right? Or is it ok because
> > the DW driver saves sys->busnr in its .scan function?
> Sounds like it is making the same mistake, and nobody noticed. This is
> another reason why it is important to implement correctly so people
> copying copy the right stuff :)
> > When would the PCI core change the root bus number to something
> > other than set in sys->busnr?
> I think the more likely scenario is that 'sys' in general is
> architecture specific and its use is being discouraged so that host
> drivers are not arch specific.
> A domain driver like rcar should always place the root complex
> integrated bus as bus 0 in the domain.
Ok, I now understand the reason for removing the dependency on sys->busnr. That makes sense & I'll update the driver for this.
Thanks for your patience :)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel