Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: Add quirks for devices found on Cavium ThunderX SoCs.

[David Daney]

On 09/18/2015 12:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 September 2015 10:00:32 David Daney wrote:
> > On 09/18/2015 12:19 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 September 2015 15:41:33 David Daney wrote:
> > > > From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > The on-chip devices all have fixed bars.  So, fix them up.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > You should be able to just mark the BARs as fixed in DT

I think we can switch to PCI_PROBE_ONLY, and have all non-fixed BAR 
devices configured by firmware.  This may significantly simplify any 
quirks required in the kernel.


> > In the case of ACPI, there is no DT.  So we would need a different
> > solution for ACPI.  What would you recommend for ACPI?
>
> I would expect that this does not matter at all on ACPI, because
> the devices that need it are not hot-plugged, and all boot-time
> devices are probed by the firmware: the ACPI PCI implementation
> does not reassign any BARs, except for the hotplug case.
>
> > Also, can you point me to the OF device tree specification where it
> > tells how to specify PCI BAR addresses, I would especially be interested
> > in knowing how to specify fixed SRIOV BAR addresses in the device tree.
>
> This is the 'n' bit mentioned sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.1.1 of the
> PCI binding. When it is set, the OS is not supposed to try to
> reassign the BAR even on machines that otherwise do a complete
> rescan.
>
> The PCI binding traditionally requires you to list all PCI devices
> in DT, Linux as an extension (for the flattened DT format) allows
> leaving out the devices, but in this case you probably need to
> list every device that has a fixed BAR.
>
> > Yes, it is a bit of a hack.  That is why I put it in its own file, and
> > only try to hack up PCI devices that exactly match the vendor and device
> > ids that need fixing.
> >
> > IMHO, putting infrastructure into drivers/pci/probe.c, et al. to handle
> > this would be much more intrusive.
>
> My guess is that it's already there, but even if it's not, this is a
> generic well-defined case that has a standardized binding, and we should
> implement that.
>
> > For the record:  The PCI Enhanced Allocation (EA) capability (approved
> > by PCI SIG on 23 October 2014) is the proper way to handle this going
> > forward.  However, this is not yet implemented in the SoCs that this
> > patch addresses.  Our plan is to implement the EA capability in the core
> > PCI code, so that we do not need to keep adding devices to this fixup code.
>
> Good, but still this should only be required for the embedded case where
> you don't have a firmware to probe the bus.
>
> 	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/