[PATCH 5121 pci 1/3] powerpc: 83xx: pci: Remove need for get_immrbase from mpc83xx_add_bridge.

[John Rigby]

Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 11:36:25AM -0600, John Rigby wrote:
>   
>> Modify mpc83xx_add_bridge to get config space register base address from the device
>> tree instead of immr + hardcoded offset.
>>
>> 83xx pci nodes have these changes:
>>     register properties now contain two address length tuples:
>> 	First is the pci bridge register base, this has always been there.
>> 	Second is the config base, this is new.
>>     The primary pci bus should have the "primary" property.
>>
>> These are documented in Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/fsl/83xx-512x-pci.txt
>>     
>
> Looks mostly good to me.  I only have one comment on the device tree
> binding...
>
>   
>> diff --git a/Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/fsl/83xx-512x-pci.txt b/Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/fsl/83xx-512x-pci.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..51214a0
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/fsl/83xx-512x-pci.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
>> +* Freescale 83xx and 512x PCI bridges
>> +
>> +Freescale 83xx and 512x SOCs include the same pci bridge core.
>> +
>> +83xx/512x specific notes:
>> +- reg: should contain two address length tuples
>> +    The first is for the internal pci bridge registers
>> +    The second is for the pci config space access registers
>> +- primary: 
>> +    This property should be present for the primary pci bridge
>>     
>
> Can you use something like 'fsl,primary-pci-bridge' instead?  'primary'
> is a little too generic for my taste.  Also, the purpose of identifying
> one of the PCI bridges as primary should be documented (This is me
> pushing against encoding Linux internal implementation details into the
> device tree, I suspect that 'primary' doesn't belong in the device tree
> at all).
>   
Ok, I got the primary idea from sam440ep.dts, I'm willing to do 
something different.

I have thought about adding an is_primary argument to mpc83xx_add_bridge 
like fsl_add_bridge has and make the callers figure out which is primary.

The simple case is the platform that have only one bus:
    for_each_compatible_node(np, "pci", "fsl,mpc8540-pci")
        fsl_add_bridge(np, 1);

Callers with multiple bridges do something like this:
    for_each_compatible_node(np, "pci", "fsl,mpc8641-pcie") {
        struct resource rsrc;
        of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &rsrc);
        if ((rsrc.start & 0xfffff) == 0x8000)
            fsl_add_bridge(np, 1);
        else
            fsl_add_bridge(np, 0);
    }

So now we are using hardcoded offsets again.

As I type this I'm coming to like the primary flag more and more.  I'm 
willing to change it to 'fsl,primary-pci-bridge' though I don't really 
agree with your argument against the generic name.  It is in the context 
of an 'fsl,pci-whatever' node so it does not have to be specific.  And 
maybe generic is good, a universal generic solution would be to require 
all primary pci nodes to have the property then 
pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges could get it out of the device node instead 
of having it passed in.

I would like to hear what the 83xx folks think about this.

John

>