[PATCH v2 07/10] ARM: tegra: pcie: Add device tree support

[Mitch Bradley]

On 6/12/2012 7:20 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> * Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/12/2012 12:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> * Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2012 09:05 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>> This commit adds support for instantiating the Tegra PCIe
>>>>> controller from a device tree.
>>>>
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/tegra-pcie.txt
>>>>
>>>> Can we please name this nvidia,tegra20-pcie.txt to match the
>>>> naming of all the other Tegra bindings.
>>>
>>> Yes, will do.
>>>
>>>>> +Required properties: +- compatible: "nvidia,tegra20-pcie" +-
>>>>> reg: physical base address and length of the controller's
>>>>> registers
>>>>
>>>> Since there's more than one range now, that should specify how
>>>> many entries are required and what they represent.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>>> +Optional properties: +- pex-clk-supply: supply voltage for
>>>>> internal reference clock +- vdd-supply: power supply for
>>>>> controller (1.05V)
>>>>
>>>> Those shouldn't be optional. If the board has no regulator, the
>>>> board's .dts should provide a fixed always-on regulator that
>>>> those properties can refer to, so that the driver can always
>>>> get() those regulators.
>>>
>>> That'll add more dummy regulators and I don't think sprinkling them
>>> across the DTS is going to work very well. Maybe collecting them
>>> under a top-level "regulators" node is a good option. If you have a
>>> better alternative, I'm all open for it.
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi
>>>>
>>>>> +	pci {
>>>> ...
>>>>> +		status = "disable";
>>>>
>>>> That should be "disabled"; sorry for providing a bad example.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pcie.c
>>>>> b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pcie.c
>>>>
>>>>> +static struct tegra_pcie_pdata *tegra_pcie_parse_dt(struct
>>>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>>
>>>>> +	if (of_find_property(node, "vdd-supply", NULL)) {
>>>>
>>>> As mentioned above, that if statement should be removed, since
>>>> the regulators shouldn't be optional.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>>> +		pcie->vdd_supply = regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "vdd");
>>>>
>>>> Those could be devm_regulator_get(). Then tegra_pcie_remove()
>>>> wouldn't have to put() them.
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>>> +	for (i = 0; i<  TEGRA_PCIE_MAX_PORTS; i++) +
>>>>> pdata->enable_ports[i] = true;
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the DT indicate which ports are used? I assume there's
>>>> some reason that the existing driver allows that to be
>>>> configured, rather than always enabling all ports. At least,
>>>> enumeration time wasted on non-existent ports springs to mind,
>>>> and perhaps attempting to enable port 1 when port 0 is x4 and
>>>> using all the lanes would cause errors in port 0?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's been on my mind as well. I'm not sure about the best
>>> binding for this. Perhaps something like:
>>>
>>> pci { enable-ports =<0 1 2>; };
>>>
>>> Would do?
>>
>> That seems reasonable, although since the property is presumably
>> something specific to the Tegra PCIe binding, not generic, I think it
>> should be nvidia,enable-ports.
>
> I came up with the following alternative:
>
> 	pci {
> 		compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-pcie";
> 		reg =<0x80003000 0x00000800   /* PADS registers */
> 		       0x80003800 0x00000200   /* AFI registers */
> 		       0x80004000 0x00100000   /* configuration space */
> 		       0x80104000 0x00100000   /* extended configuration space */
> 		       0x80400000 0x00010000   /* downstream I/O */
> 		       0x90000000 0x10000000   /* non-prefetchable memory */
> 		       0xa0000000 0x10000000>; /* prefetchable memory */
> 		interrupts =<0 98 0x04   /* controller interrupt */
> 		              0 99 0x04>; /* MSI interrupt */
> 		status = "disabled";
>
> 		ranges =<0x80000000 0x80000000 0x00002000   /* 2 root ports */
> 			  0x80004000 0x80004000 0x00100000   /* configuration space */
> 			  0x80104000 0x80104000 0x00100000   /* extended configuration space */
> 			  0x80400000 0x80400000 0x00010000   /* downstream I/O */
> 			  0x90000000 0x90000000 0x10000000   /* non-prefetchable memory */
> 			  0xa0000000 0xa0000000 0x10000000>; /* prefetchable memory */
>
> 		#address-cells =<1>;
> 		#size-cells =<1>;
>
> 		port at 80000000 {
> 			reg =<0x80000000 0x00001000>;
> 			status = "disabled";
> 		};
>
> 		port at 80001000 {
> 			reg =<0x80001000 0x00001000>;
> 			status = "disabled";
> 		};
> 	};
>
> The "ranges" property can probably be cleaned up a bit, but the most
> interesting part is the port@ children, which can simply be enabled in board
> DTS files by setting the status property to "okay". I find that somewhat more
> intuitive to the variant with an "enable-ports" property.
>
> What do you think of this?

The problem is that children of a PCI-ish bus have specific expectations 
about the parent address format - the standard 3-address-cell PCI 
addressing.  So making a PCI bus node - even if it is PCIe - with 1 
address cell is a problem.

Also, if a given address range is listed in "reg", it should not also be 
listed in "ranges".  A block of addresses is either "claimed" by the 
parent node (reg property) or passed through to its children (ranges 
property), but not both.  "reg" entries are appropriate for entities 
that pertain to the overall control of the bus interface itself, while 
"ranges" entries are for chunks of address space that are overlaid onto 
child devices.

>
>
> Thierry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss at lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/attachments/20120612/f97d2ef4/attachment-0001.html>