[PATCH v2 1/6] Revert "PCI: dw-rockchip: Don't wait for link since we can detect Link Up"
Bjorn Helgaas
helgaas at kernel.org
Fri Dec 26 14:31:59 PST 2025
[+cc Ilpo]
On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 07:42:08AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> This reverts commit ec9fd499b9c60a187ac8d6414c3c343c77d32e42.
>
> While this fake hotplugging was a nice idea, it has shown that this feature
> does not handle PCIe switches correctly:
> pci_bus 0004:43: busn_res: can not insert [bus 43-41] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
Apart from the actual problem you're fixing, it looks like some of our
bus number resource setup is a little deficient here. The "43-41" and
"42-41" ranges are bogus and "(null)" doesn't tell us anything useful.
> pci_bus 0004:43: busn_res: [bus 43-41] end is updated to 43
> pci_bus 0004:43: busn_res: can not insert [bus 43] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
> pci 0004:42:00.0: devices behind bridge are unusable because [bus 43] cannot be assigned for them
> pci_bus 0004:44: busn_res: can not insert [bus 44-41] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
> pci_bus 0004:44: busn_res: [bus 44-41] end is updated to 44
> pci_bus 0004:44: busn_res: can not insert [bus 44] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
> pci 0004:42:02.0: devices behind bridge are unusable because [bus 44] cannot be assigned for them
> pci_bus 0004:45: busn_res: can not insert [bus 45-41] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
> pci_bus 0004:45: busn_res: [bus 45-41] end is updated to 45
> pci_bus 0004:45: busn_res: can not insert [bus 45] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
> pci 0004:42:06.0: devices behind bridge are unusable because [bus 45] cannot be assigned for them
> pci_bus 0004:46: busn_res: can not insert [bus 46-41] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
> pci_bus 0004:46: busn_res: [bus 46-41] end is updated to 46
> pci_bus 0004:46: busn_res: can not insert [bus 46] under [bus 42-41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 42-41])
> pci 0004:42:0e.0: devices behind bridge are unusable because [bus 46] cannot be assigned for them
> pci_bus 0004:42: busn_res: [bus 42-41] end is updated to 46
> pci_bus 0004:42: busn_res: can not insert [bus 42-46] under [bus 41] (conflicts with (null) [bus 41])
> pci 0004:41:00.0: devices behind bridge are unusable because [bus 42-46] cannot be assigned for them
> pcieport 0004:40:00.0: bridge has subordinate 41 but max busn 46
>
> During the initial scan, PCI core doesn't see the switch and since the Root
> Port is not hot plug capable, the secondary bus number gets assigned as the
> subordinate bus number. This means, the PCI core assumes that only one bus
> will appear behind the Root Port since the Root Port is not hot plug
> capable.
>
> This works perfectly fine for PCIe endpoints connected to the Root Port,
> since they don't extend the bus. However, if a PCIe switch is connected,
> then there is a problem when the downstream busses starts showing up and
> the PCI core doesn't extend the subordinate bus number after initial scan
> during boot.
I suppose this is could also be viewed as a resource management
problem.
Even in the normal hotplug case, we never know what a hot-added
hierarchy will look like, so we hack around it with the compiled-in
DEFAULT_HOTPLUG_BUS_SIZE and the "hpbussize=" kernel parameter.
It would be nice if we could allocate more bus numbers at hot-add (or
link-up) time as needed. That's hard after drivers have claimed
nearby devices, but in this case there might not be anything nearby.
> The long term plan is to migrate this driver to the pwrctrl framework,
> once it adds proper support for powering up and enumerating PCIe switches.
"Proper" is hiding some important details here. pwrctrl already
supports powering up and enumerating switches. I think this refers to
[1], where Mani says the plan is for pwrctrl to power up everything
before the initial bus scan so we can figure out how many buses are
needed.
Bjorn
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/fle74skju2rorxmfdvosmeyrx3g75rysuszov5ofvde2exj4ir@3kfjyfyhczmn/
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list