I've just spotted commit:
a2ec1996098c7da0 ("PCI: hisi: Add DT almost-ECAM support for Hip06/Hip07 host controllers")
... which went in for v4.11-rc1.
I hadn't seen this until now, and as far as I can tell this never went
to the devicetree list.
The commit adds the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam", which goes against the
usual DT conventions, and is non-sensical in that it describes the IP
based on what it isn't.
This binding shouldn't have gone in as-is, and we should fix it before
v4.11.
The binding states that this IP is found in Hip06 and Hip07. For these
cases we'd usually take the name of the first implementation, e.g.
something like "hisilicon,hip06-pcie", which can be used as a fallback
in the compatible list if reused in subsequent SoC generations.
I also see that "hisilicon,hip06-pcie" already exists, so I'm even more
suspicious.
What exactly is the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam" binding trying to
describe? Is it a different IP also found on Hip06, or is it a new
binding for the same IP?
Thanks,
Mark.
Hi Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Rutland [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 10 March 2017 17:41
> To: liudongdong (C); Bjorn Helgaas
> Cc: Gabriele Paoloni; Wangzhou (B); [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Bad DT binding (hisi-pcie-almost-ecam)
>
> I've just spotted commit:
>
> a2ec1996098c7da0 ("PCI: hisi: Add DT almost-ECAM support for
> Hip06/Hip07 host controllers")
>
> ... which went in for v4.11-rc1.
>
> I hadn't seen this until now, and as far as I can tell this never went
> to the devicetree list.
Sorry about this, we'll be more careful next time
>
> The commit adds the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam", which goes against
> the
> usual DT conventions, and is non-sensical in that it describes the IP
> based on what it isn't.
>
> This binding shouldn't have gone in as-is, and we should fix it before
> v4.11.
>
> The binding states that this IP is found in Hip06 and Hip07. For these
> cases we'd usually take the name of the first implementation, e.g.
> something like "hisilicon,hip06-pcie", which can be used as a fallback
> in the compatible list if reused in subsequent SoC generations.
>
> I also see that "hisilicon,hip06-pcie" already exists, so I'm even more
> suspicious.
For Hip06 the IP is the same but in we have a different BIOS configuration
that allows the controller be ECAM compliant for all the devices of the
hierarchy except the RC.
>
> What exactly is the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam" binding trying to
> describe? Is it a different IP also found on Hip06, or is it a new
> binding for the same IP?
The reason why we need this new BIOS is to support the recent PCIe quirks
for the ACPI Root Port driver (commit 5b69b85ba1ddd36be01f5c57830b37a3c8256009
"PCI/ACPI: Check for platform-specific MCFG quirks"). So using one BIOS we
support both DT and ACPI.
This is the reason why you see Hip-06 being already there...
About the name to use here from what you suggest we should use
"hisilicon,hip06-pcie-almost-ecam" and re-use it for hip07 SoC.
To be honest I would prefer it either as it is now or to modify the
driver as:
diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
index 52f1e3f..7527b4c 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
@@ -381,7 +381,11 @@ struct pci_ecam_ops hisi_pcie_platform_ops = {
static const struct of_device_id hisi_pcie_almost_ecam_of_match[] = {
{
- .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam",
+ .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam-hip06",
+ .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
+ },
+ {
+ .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam-hip07",
.data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
},
{},
What do you think?
Many Thanks
Gab
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Gabriele Paoloni
<[email protected]> wrote:
> About the name to use here from what you suggest we should use
> "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-almost-ecam" and re-use it for hip07 SoC.
> To be honest I would prefer it either as it is now or to modify the
> driver as:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
> index 52f1e3f..7527b4c 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
> @@ -381,7 +381,11 @@ struct pci_ecam_ops hisi_pcie_platform_ops = {
>
> static const struct of_device_id hisi_pcie_almost_ecam_of_match[] = {
> {
> - .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam",
> + .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam-hip06",
Shouldn't that be "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-almost-ecam"?
> + .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam-hip07",
Shouldn't that be "hisilicon,hip07-pcie-almost-ecam"?
> .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
> },
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Hi Geert
[...]
> > {
> > - .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam",
> > + .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam-hip06",
>
> Shouldn't that be "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-almost-ecam"?
>
> > + .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam-hip07",
>
> Shouldn't that be "hisilicon,hip07-pcie-almost-ecam"?
Indeed prefixing the SoC name is more consistent and it looks better
Many thanks
Gab
>
> > .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
> > },
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-
> m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a
> hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something
> like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 08:14:19AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Rutland [mailto:[email protected]]
> > The commit adds the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam", which goes against
> > the
> > usual DT conventions, and is non-sensical in that it describes the IP
> > based on what it isn't.
> >
> > This binding shouldn't have gone in as-is, and we should fix it before
> > v4.11.
> >
> > The binding states that this IP is found in Hip06 and Hip07. For these
> > cases we'd usually take the name of the first implementation, e.g.
> > something like "hisilicon,hip06-pcie", which can be used as a fallback
> > in the compatible list if reused in subsequent SoC generations.
> >
> > I also see that "hisilicon,hip06-pcie" already exists, so I'm even more
> > suspicious.
>
> For Hip06 the IP is the same but in we have a different BIOS configuration
> that allows the controller be ECAM compliant for all the devices of the
> hierarchy except the RC.
>
> > What exactly is the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam" binding trying to
> > describe? Is it a different IP also found on Hip06, or is it a new
> > binding for the same IP?
>
> The reason why we need this new BIOS is to support the recent PCIe quirks
> for the ACPI Root Port driver (commit 5b69b85ba1ddd36be01f5c57830b37a3c8256009
> "PCI/ACPI: Check for platform-specific MCFG quirks"). So using one BIOS we
> support both DT and ACPI.
> This is the reason why you see Hip-06 being already there...
Ok. Thanks for clarifying that.
What I think we should do is:
a) Update the binding document to clarify when these strings are used.
b) Use an SoC prefix in the string. I'm happy to have both hip06 and hip07
strings.
c) Drop the "almost", since we don't use that elsewhere. (e.g. for
cavium,pci-host-thunder-ecam"
Would you be happy with the below?
Thanks,
Mark.
---->8----
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt
index b7fa3b9..535426d 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt
@@ -44,13 +44,19 @@ Hip05 Example (note that Hip06 is the same except compatible):
};
HiSilicon Hip06/Hip07 PCIe host bridge DT (almost-ECAM) description.
+
+Some BIOSes place the host controller in a mode where it is ECAM compliant for
+all devices other than the root complex. In such cases, the host controller
+should be described as below.
+
The properties and their meanings are identical to those described in
host-generic-pci.txt except as listed below.
Properties of the host controller node that differ from
host-generic-pci.txt:
-- compatible : Must be "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam"
+- compatible : Must be "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-ecam", or
+ "hisilicon,hip07-pcie-ecam"
- reg : Two entries: First the ECAM configuration space for any
other bus underneath the root bus. Second, the base
@@ -59,7 +65,7 @@ host-generic-pci.txt:
Example:
pcie0: pcie@a0090000 {
- compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam";
+ compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-ecam";
reg = <0 0xb0000000 0 0x2000000>, /* ECAM configuration space */
<0 0xa0090000 0 0x10000>; /* host bridge registers */
bus-range = <0 31>;
diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
index fd66a31..bd5b1b4 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
@@ -380,7 +380,11 @@ struct pci_ecam_ops hisi_pcie_platform_ops = {
static const struct of_device_id hisi_pcie_almost_ecam_of_match[] = {
{
- .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam",
+ .compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-ecam",
+ .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
+ },
+ {
+ .compatible = "hisilicon,hip07-pcie-ecam",
.data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
},
{},
Hi Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Rutland [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 13 March 2017 10:44
> To: Gabriele Paoloni
> Cc: liudongdong (C); Bjorn Helgaas; Wangzhou (B);
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Bad DT binding (hisi-pcie-almost-ecam)
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 08:14:19AM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Rutland [mailto:[email protected]]
>
> > > The commit adds the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam", which goes
> against
> > > the
> > > usual DT conventions, and is non-sensical in that it describes the
> IP
> > > based on what it isn't.
> > >
> > > This binding shouldn't have gone in as-is, and we should fix it
> before
> > > v4.11.
> > >
> > > The binding states that this IP is found in Hip06 and Hip07. For
> these
> > > cases we'd usually take the name of the first implementation, e.g.
> > > something like "hisilicon,hip06-pcie", which can be used as a
> fallback
> > > in the compatible list if reused in subsequent SoC generations.
> > >
> > > I also see that "hisilicon,hip06-pcie" already exists, so I'm even
> more
> > > suspicious.
> >
> > For Hip06 the IP is the same but in we have a different BIOS
> configuration
> > that allows the controller be ECAM compliant for all the devices of
> the
> > hierarchy except the RC.
> >
> > > What exactly is the "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam" binding trying to
> > > describe? Is it a different IP also found on Hip06, or is it a new
> > > binding for the same IP?
> >
> > The reason why we need this new BIOS is to support the recent PCIe
> quirks
> > for the ACPI Root Port driver (commit
> 5b69b85ba1ddd36be01f5c57830b37a3c8256009
> > "PCI/ACPI: Check for platform-specific MCFG quirks"). So using one
> BIOS we
> > support both DT and ACPI.
> > This is the reason why you see Hip-06 being already there...
>
> Ok. Thanks for clarifying that.
>
> What I think we should do is:
>
> a) Update the binding document to clarify when these strings are used.
>
> b) Use an SoC prefix in the string. I'm happy to have both hip06 and
> hip07
> strings.
>
> c) Drop the "almost", since we don't use that elsewhere. (e.g. for
> cavium,pci-host-thunder-ecam"
>
> Would you be happy with the below?
Yes indeed it would work for us.
We could discuss about the appropriateness of ecam vs almost-ecam,
but I don't think it is of much value as long as we make the meaning
clear in the Documentation
We'll send the fix below to lists in a separate patch...
Many Thanks
Gab
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> ---->8----
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt
> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt
> index b7fa3b9..535426d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/hisilicon-pcie.txt
> @@ -44,13 +44,19 @@ Hip05 Example (note that Hip06 is the same except
> compatible):
> };
>
> HiSilicon Hip06/Hip07 PCIe host bridge DT (almost-ECAM) description.
> +
> +Some BIOSes place the host controller in a mode where it is ECAM
> compliant for
> +all devices other than the root complex. In such cases, the host
> controller
> +should be described as below.
> +
> The properties and their meanings are identical to those described in
> host-generic-pci.txt except as listed below.
>
> Properties of the host controller node that differ from
> host-generic-pci.txt:
>
> -- compatible : Must be "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam"
> +- compatible : Must be "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-ecam", or
> + "hisilicon,hip07-pcie-ecam"
>
> - reg : Two entries: First the ECAM configuration space for
> any
> other bus underneath the root bus. Second, the base
> @@ -59,7 +65,7 @@ host-generic-pci.txt:
>
> Example:
> pcie0: pcie@a0090000 {
> - compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam";
> + compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-ecam";
> reg = <0 0xb0000000 0 0x2000000>, /* ECAM
> configuration space */
> <0 0xa0090000 0 0x10000>; /* host bridge
> registers */
> bus-range = <0 31>;
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
> index fd66a31..bd5b1b4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/dwc/pcie-hisi.c
> @@ -380,7 +380,11 @@ struct pci_ecam_ops hisi_pcie_platform_ops = {
>
> static const struct of_device_id hisi_pcie_almost_ecam_of_match[] = {
> {
> - .compatible = "hisilicon,pcie-almost-ecam",
> + .compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-pcie-ecam",
> + .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "hisilicon,hip07-pcie-ecam",
> .data = (void *) &hisi_pcie_platform_ops,
> },
> {},