lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V7 04/15] PCI: dwc: Move config space capability search API
From
Date
On 5/22/2019 7:32 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:26:08PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>> On 5/22/2019 2:47 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 06:08:35PM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>>>> Move PCIe config space capability search API to common DesignWare file
>>>> as this can be used by both host and ep mode codes.
>
>>>> .../pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware-ep.c | 37 +----------------
>>>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 2 +
>>>> 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
>>>> @@ -14,6 +14,46 @@
>>>> #include "pcie-designware.h"
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * These APIs are different from standard pci_find_*capability() APIs in the
>>>> + * sense that former can only be used post device enumeration as they require
>>>> + * 'struct pci_dev *' pointer whereas these APIs require 'struct dw_pcie *'
>>>> + * pointer and can be used before link up also.
>>>
>>> I think this comment is slightly misleading because it suggests the
>>> reason we need these DW interfaces is because we're doing something
>>> before a pci_dev pointer is available.
>>>
>>> But these DW interfaces are used on devices that will *never* have a
>>> pci_dev pointer because they are not PCI devices. They're used on
>>> host controller devices, which have a PCIe link on the downstream
>>> side, but the host controller driver operates them using their
>>> upstream, non-PCI interfaces. Logically, I think they would be
>>> considered parts of Root Complexes, not Root Ports.
>>>
>>> There's actually no reason why that upstream interface should look
>>> anything like PCI; it doesn't need to organize registers into
>>> capability lists at all. It might be convenient for the hardware to
>>> do that and share things with a Root Port device, which *is* a PCI
>>> device, but it's not required.
>>>
>>> It also really has nothing to do with whether the link is up. This
>>> code operates on hardware that is upstream from the link, so we can
>>> reach it regardless of the link.
>>
>> I added this comment after receiving a review comment to justify why
>> standard pci_find_*capability() APIs can't be used here. Hence added
>> this. I understand your comment that DW interface need not have to
>> be a PCI device, but what is present in the hardware is effectively
>> a root port implementation and post enumeration, we get a 'struct
>> pci_dev' created for it, hence I thought it is fine to bring 'struct
>> pci_dev' into picture.
>
> This code operates on the host controller. It configures the bridge
> that leads *to* PCI devices. Since that bridge is not a PCI device,
> the PCI specs don't say anything about how to program it.
>
> The fact that the host controller programming interface happens to
> resemble the PCI programming interface is purely coincidental.
>
>> Also, I agree that mention of 'link up' is unwarranted and could be
>> reworded in a better way.
>>
>> Do you suggest to remove this comment altogether or reword it s/and
>> can be used before link up also/and can be used before 'struct
>> pci_dev' is available/ ?
>
> Maybe something like this?
>
> These interfaces resemble the pci_find_*capability() interfaces,
> but these are for configuring host controllers, which are bridges
> *to* PCI devices but are not PCI devices themselves.
Ok. Done.

>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-24 16:47    [W:0.069 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site