lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI: xilinx-cpm: Add Versal CPM Root Port driver
Date
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI: xilinx-cpm: Add Versal CPM Root Port driver
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 06:14:43PM +0530, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> > - Add support for Versal CPM as Root Port.
> > - The Versal ACAP devices include CCIX-PCIe Module (CPM). The integrated
> > block for CPM along with the integrated bridge can function
> > as PCIe Root Port.
> > - CPM Versal uses GICv3 ITS feature for achieving assigning MSI/MSI-X
> > vectors and handling MSI/MSI-X interrupts.
> > - Bridge error and legacy interrupts in Versal CPM are handled using
> > Versal CPM specific MISC interrupt line.
> >
> > Changes v4:
> > - change commit subject.
> > - Remove unnecessary comments and type cast.
> > - Added comments for CPM block register access using readl/writel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharat.kumar.gogada@xilinx.com>
> > ...
>
> > +static bool xilinx_cpm_pcie_valid_device(struct pci_bus *bus,
> > + unsigned int devfn)
> > +{
> > + struct xilinx_cpm_pcie_port *port = bus->sysdata;
> > +
> > + /* Only one device down on each root port */
> > + if (bus->number == port->root_busno && devfn > 0)
> > + return false;
>
> This whole *_valid_device() thing is a mess. We shouldn't need it at all. But if
> we *do* need it, I don't think you should check the entire devfn because that
> means you can't attach a multifunction device.
>
> Several other drivers with similar *_valid_device() implementations check only
> PCI_SLOT():
>
> dw_pcie_valid_device()
> advk_pcie_valid_device()
> pci_dw_valid_device()
> altera_pcie_valid_device()
> mobiveil_pcie_valid_device()
> rockchip_pcie_valid_device()
>
> Even checking just PCI_SLOT() is problematic because I think an ARI device with
> more than 8 functions will not work correctly.
>
> What exactly happens if you omit this function, i.e., if we just go ahead and
> attempt config accesses when the device is not present? We
> *should* get something like an Unsupported Request completion, and that
> *should* be a recoverable error. Most hardware turns this error into read data
> of 0xffffffff. The OS should be able to figure out that there's no device there
> and continue with no ill effects.
>
Thanks Bjorn. I did test and I do not see any issue without this.
Will resend patch with this change.
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * xilinx_cpm_pcie_map_bus - Get configuration base
> > + * @bus: PCI Bus structure
> > + * @devfn: Device/function
> > + * @where: Offset from base
> > + *
> > + * Return: Base address of the configuration space needed to be
> > + * accessed.
> > + */
> > +static void __iomem *xilinx_cpm_pcie_map_bus(struct pci_bus *bus,
> > + unsigned int devfn, int where) {
> > + struct xilinx_cpm_pcie_port *port = bus->sysdata;
> > + int relbus;
> > +
> > + if (!xilinx_cpm_pcie_valid_device(bus, devfn))
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + relbus = (bus->number << ECAM_BUS_NUM_SHIFT) |
> > + (devfn << ECAM_DEV_NUM_SHIFT);
> > +
> > + return port->reg_base + relbus + where; }
> > +
> > +/* PCIe operations */
> > +static struct pci_ops xilinx_cpm_pcie_ops = {
> > + .map_bus = xilinx_cpm_pcie_map_bus,
> > + .read = pci_generic_config_read,
> > + .write = pci_generic_config_write,
> > +};

Regards,
bharat

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-29 12:17    [W:0.102 / U:1.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site