multiple separate pci bridges ...

[Rob Baxter]

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:56:57AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 02:18, Rob Baxter wrote:
> > Sven,
> >
> > Synergy Microsystems has designs with the Discovery 2 as well.  We worked
> > around this by setting pci_assign_all_busses to true and with modifications
> > to the platform specific config cycle routines (only included one as an
> > example):
> >
> > int
> > gemini_pcibios_bus_fixup(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pci_controller *hose)
> > {
> >         return ((dev->bus->number == hose->first_busno) ? 0 : dev->bus->number);
> > }
> >
> > int
> > gemini_pcibios_read_config_byte(struct pci_dev *dev, int offset, u8 *val)
> > {
> >         unsigned long reg;
> >         unsigned int addr;
> >         int bus;
> >         struct pci_controller *hose;
> >
> >         hose = dev->sysdata;
> >         bus = gemini_pcibios_bus_fixup(dev, hose);
> >         addr = pci_config_type1_addr(bus, dev->devfn, offset & ~(0x3));
> >
> >         reg = config_read(addr, hose->cfg_addr, hose->cfg_data);
> >         *val = ((reg >> ((offset & 0x3) << 3)) & 0xff);
> >         return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
> > }
>
> Hrm... Why this bus fixup thing ? Why not just clearly writing
> something like
>
> if (dev->bus->number == hose->first_busno)
> 	discovery2_config_type0_addr(....);
> else
> 	discovery2_config_type1_addr(....);
>
> And those could be inline...

I like this, thank you, a much cleaner approach.

>
> Also, the way you define functions with a name that "looks" like a
> generic function (pci_config_type1_addr) is rather ugly...

It's a local macro, I agree, it's ugly, it was there before my time:

#define pci_config_type1_addr(bus,dev,offset) \
        (0x80000000 | ((bus)<<16) | ((dev)<<8) | (offset))

#define pci_config_type0_addr(dev,offset) \
        ((1 << PCI_SLOT(dev)) | (PCI_FUNC(dev) << 8) | offset)

>
>
> > It is also necessary to set the first and last bus number fields of the
> > hose structure correctly in your platform specific code.  These will get
> > over written later by the PCI driver code, and in our case, to the same
> > values.  Our platform specific code does a preliminary scan of the PCI
> > buses to find the first and last bus numbers.
>
> Why would you need to set them correctly ? The PCI code will set them
> to sensible values before doing the bus scan and will fixup the last
> busno afterward for each controller, you do not need any pre-scan or
> whatever and you can leave those values to 0 at init time.

This was necessary because the PCI driver (scan/enumeration code) was using
these same config calls that was being fixed up.  (A chicken and egg issue?)

>
> > This will also work when a PtP bridge is located on either of the primary
> > PCI buses of the Discovery.  We're using a derivative of a 2.4.19 kernel.
>
> Yup, that should work fine.
>
> Ben.

--
-Rob

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/