Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932715AbdC2MyW (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:54:22 -0400 Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5]:37456 "EHLO smtp5-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932111AbdC2MyU (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:54:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] PCI: Add tango PCIe host bridge support To: Robin Murphy Cc: Marc Gonzalez , Bjorn Helgaas , Marc Zyngier , Thomas Gleixner , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Liviu Dudau , David Laight , linux-pci , Linux ARM , Thibaud Cornic , Phuong Nguyen , LKML , DT References: <5309e718-5813-5b79-db57-9d702b50d0f9@sigmadesigns.com> <65114e62-7458-b6f7-327c-f07a5096a452@sigmadesigns.com> <01516ad9-e187-4bac-7c65-a7a90c576ce2@arm.com> From: Mason Message-ID: <96da696c-141a-3e8d-1fb7-2c024a295f58@free.fr> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:53:47 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/51.0 SeaMonkey/2.48 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <01516ad9-e187-4bac-7c65-a7a90c576ce2@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1995 Lines: 67 On 29/03/2017 14:19, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 29/03/17 12:34, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > >> + /* >> + * QUIRK #3 >> + * Unfortunately, config and mem spaces are muxed. >> + * Linux does not support such a setting, since drivers are free >> + * to access mem space directly, at any time. >> + * Therefore, we can only PRAY that config and mem space accesses >> + * NEVER occur concurrently. >> + */ > > What about David's suggestion of using an IPI for safe mutual exclusion? I was left with the impression that this wouldn't solve the problem. If a mem space access is "in flight" on core0 when core1 starts a config space access, an IPI will not prevent breakage. Did I misunderstand? For my education, what is the API to send an IPI? And the API to handle an IPI? >> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "sigma,smp8759-pcie")) >> + smp8759_init(pcie, base); > > ...then retrieve it with of_device_get_match_data() here. No need to > reinvent the wheel (or have to worry about the ordering of multiple > compatibles once rev. n+1 comes around). I actually asked about this on IRC. The consensus was "use what best fits your use case". I need to do some processing based on the revision, so I thought if (chip_x) do_chip_x_init() was a good way to express my intent. Did I misunderstand? For example, the init function for rev2 currently looks like this: static void rev2_init(struct tango_pcie *pcie, void __iomem *base) { void __iomem *misc_irq = base + 0x40; void __iomem *doorbell = base + 0x8c; pcie->mux = base + 0x2c; pcie->msi_status = base + 0x4c; pcie->msi_mask = base + 0x6c; pcie->msi_doorbell = 0x80000000; writel(lower_32_bits(pcie->msi_doorbell), doorbell + 0); writel(upper_32_bits(pcie->msi_doorbell), doorbell + 4); /* Enable legacy PCI interrupts */ writel(BIT(15), misc_irq); writel(0xf << 4, misc_irq + 4); } >> +#define VENDOR_SIGMA 0x1105 > > Should this not be in include/linux/pci_ids.h? Doh! Very likely. Thanks. Regards.