[PATCH v7 0/7] Add ASPEED PCIe Root Complex support

[Mikhail Rudenko]

Hi Jacky,

On 2026-01-07 at 02:28 GMT, Jacky Chou <jacky_chou at aspeedtech.com> wrote:

> Hi Mikhail Rudenko,
>
>> First of all, thank you for your efforts in getting this driver upstreamed! I am
>> trying to understand whether this driver supports PCIe devices that have an I/O
>> port BAR, where CPU access to I/O ports is required for proper device
>> operation.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, this line in the Aspeed 2600 dtsi file declares the I/O
>> port range:
>>
>>     ranges = <0x01000000 0x0 0x00018000 0x00018000 0x0 0x00008000
>>
>> During system initialization, the pci_remap_iospace() function in
>> arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c maps the physical address range
>> 0x00018000-0x00020000 to the virtual address PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE
>> (0xfee00000). After this mapping, inb() and outb() calls work by converting I/O
>> port addresses to virtual addresses starting at PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE, then
>> performing reads and writes to those virtual addresses.
>>
>> What I don't understand is this: according to the Aspeed 2600 datasheet, the
>> address range 0x00000000-0x0fffffff (which contains
>> 0x00018000-0x00020000) is mapped to Firmware SPI Memory. This would
>> mean that outb() operations get routed to memory-mapped SPI flash instead of
>> PCIe.
>>
>> It seems like there's a missing piece to this puzzle. Could you help clarify how
>> this is supposed to work?
>>
>
> Thank you for pointing this out, and sorry for the confusion.
>
> You are correct that, as things stand, this does not make sense from a real hardware perspective.
>
> In fact, the I/O addressing support you noticed was something we experimented with internally
> only. There is no actual hardware design on AST2600 that supports PCIe I/O port addressing in
> this way. To enable those experiments, we modified our internal kernel accordingly, but this was
> never intended to represent real, supported hardware behavior.
>
> This is our mistake for leaving this description in the DTS, as it can indeed be misleading. We
> will remove this part to avoid further confusion.
>
> Thank you again for your careful review and for bringing this to our attention.

Thank you for prompt reply and for getting this clarified!

> Thanks,
> Jacky


--
Kind regards,
Mikhail