RE: [PATCH 0/6] Description for PCI patches using platform driver

Hello Ben, Kumar, others:

This series of patches had been pending for a long time on upstream.
We fixed some issues we found and there still some issues should be
discussed like swiotlb init thing. Do you have time for a review?

Thanks.
-Jia Hongtao.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:52 PM
To: Jia Hongtao-B38951; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
galak@kernel.crashing.org; benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: Li Yang-R58472; Wood Scott-B07421
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/6] Description for PCI patches using platform
driver
=20
Hello Ben, Kumar, others
=20
Please provide your comments/thoughts on this ?
=20
Thanks
-Bharat
=20

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Jia Hongtao-B38951
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:12 PM
To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; galak@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: Li Yang-R58472; benh@kernel.crashing.org; Wood Scott-B07421=

;

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Bhushan Bharat-

quoted

R65777; Jia Hongtao-B38951
Subject: [PATCH 0/6] Description for PCI patches using platform
driver

This series of patches are to unify pci initialization code and
add PM

support

quoted

for all 85xx/86xx powerpc boards. But two side effects are
introduced

by this

quoted

mechanism which listed below:

1. of_platform_bus_probe() will be called twice but in some
cases

duplication

quoted

   warning occured. We fix this in [PATCH 5/6].

2. Edac driver failed to register pci nodes as platform devices=

.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

We fix

this

quoted

   in [PATCH 6/6].

With these patches will not the SWIOTLB will not be initialized
even if PCI/PCIe demanded?

Thanks
-Bharat

These patches still have the swiotlb init problem if

"ppc_swiotlb_enable" is

quoted

only demanded by PCI/PCIe. One of the purposes of sending out these

patches is

quoted

to let us start a discussion for this problem in upstream.

Ok, I did not find any mention of that, so I thought that you have
resolved the issue by some means in these patches which I did not

catch.

quoted

quoted

So, these patches introduces the issue, that SWIOTLB will not be
initialized if requested by pci/pcie. The request is raised by

setting

quoted

quoted

the flag ppc_swiotlb_enable. The swiotlb_init() will be called in
mem_init() if ppc_swiotlb_enable is set. Now with these patches, the
request is raised after mem_init() is called. So request not

handled :).

quoted

quoted

Following are the solutions we have thought of during our internal
discussions (if I did not missed any):

1. These patches move the code from platform init to device init
(arch_initcall()). Rather than moving the whole code, let us divide
the code into two. First, which is needed to raise the swiotlb init
request and second the rest. Define this first as an function in
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c and call this from platform init code

of

quoted

quoted

the SOCs.

2. All known devices, the lowest PCIe outbound range starts at
0x80000000, but there's nothing above 0xc0000000. So the inbound of
size 0x8000_0000 is always availbe on all devices. Hardcode the check
in platform code to check memblock_end_of_DRAM() to 0x80000000.

Something like this:

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/corenet_ds.c

b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/corenet_ds.c
index 1f7028e..ef4e215 100644

--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/corenet_ds.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/corenet_ds.c

@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ void __init corenet_ds_setup_arch(void)  #endif

#ifdef CONFIG_SWIOTLB
-       if (memblock_end_of_DRAM() > 0xffffffff)
+       if (memblock_end_of_DRAM() > 0xff000000)
                 ppc_swiotlb_enable =3D 1;  #endif
         pr_info("%s board from Freescale Semiconductor\n",
ppc_md.name);

-------------

3. Always do swiotlb_init() in mem_init() and later after PCI init,

if

quoted

quoted

the swiotlb is not needed then free it (swiotlb_free()).

4. etc, please provide some other better way.

Thanks
-Bharat

Thanks.
In my point of view the 2nd solution is better for it does not treat

PCI/PCIe as

quoted

the special kind of devices from others.

-Jia Hongtao.