| Message ID | 5ca13a5b01c6c737f07416be53eb05b32811da21.1724159867.git.andrea.porta@suse.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for RaspberryPi RP1 PCI device using a DT overlay | expand |
Hi Rob, On 16:29 Mon 26 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:19 AM Andrea della Porta > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On 19:16 Tue 20 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 04:36:06PM +0200, Andrea della Porta wrote: > > > > A missing or empty dma-ranges in a DT node implies a 1:1 mapping for dma > > > > translations. In this specific case, rhe current behaviour is to zero out > > > > > > typo > > > > Fixed, thanks! > > > > > > > > > the entire specifier so that the translation could be carried on as an > > > > offset from zero. This includes address specifier that has flags (e.g. > > > > PCI ranges). > > > > Once the flags portion has been zeroed, the translation chain is broken > > > > since the mapping functions will check the upcoming address specifier > > > > > > What does "upcoming address" mean? > > > > Sorry for the confusion, this means "address specifier (with valid flags) fed > > to the translating functions and for which we are looking for a translation". > > While this address has some valid flags set, it will fail the translation step > > since the ranges it is matched against have flags zeroed out by the 1:1 mapping > > condition. > > > > > > > > > against mismatching flags, always failing the 1:1 mapping and its entire > > > > purpose of always succeeding. > > > > Set to zero only the address portion while passing the flags through. > > > > > > Can you point me to what the failing DT looks like. I'm puzzled how > > > things would have worked for anyone. > > > > > > > The following is a simplified and lightly edited) version of the resulting DT > > from RPi5: > > > > pci@0,0 { > > #address-cells = <0x03>; > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > ...... > > device_type = "pci"; > > compatible = "pci14e4,2712\0pciclass,060400\0pciclass,0604"; > > ranges = <0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x600000>; > > reg = <0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00>; > > > > ...... > > > > rp1@0 { > > What does 0 represent here? There's no 0 address in 'ranges' below. > Since you said the parent is a PCI-PCI bridge, then the unit-address > would have to be the PCI devfn and you are missing 'reg' (or omitted > it). There's no reg property because the registers for RP1 are addressed starting at 0x40108000 offset from BAR1. The devicetree specs says that a missing reg node should not have any unit address specified (and AFAIK there's no other special directives for simple-bus specified in dt-bindings). I've added @0 just to get rid of the following warning: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /fragment@0/__overlay__/rp1: node has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name coming from make W=1 CHECK_DTBS=y broadcom/rp1.dtbo. This is the exact same approach used by Bootlin patchset from: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240808154658.247873-2-herve.codina@bootlin.com/ replied here below for convenience: + pci-ep-bus@0 { + compatible = "simple-bus"; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <1>; + + /* + * map @0xe2000000 (32MB) to BAR0 (CPU) + * map @0xe0000000 (16MB) to BAR1 (AMBA) + */ + ranges = <0xe2000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x2000000 + 0xe0000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x1000000>; Also, I think it's not possible to know the devfn in advance, since the DT part is pre-compiled as an overlay while the devfn number is coming from bus enumeration. Since the registers for sub-peripherals will start (as stated in ranges property) from 0xc040000000, I'd be inclined to use rp1@c040000000 as the node name and address unit. Is it feasible? > > > #address-cells = <0x02>; > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > compatible = "simple-bus"; > > The parent is a PCI-PCI bridge. Child nodes have to be PCI devices and > "simple-bus" is not a PCI device. The simple-bus is needed to automatically traverse and create platform devices in of_platform_populate(). It's true that RP1 is a PCI device, but sub-peripherals of RP1 are platform devices so I guess this is unavoidable right now. > > The assumption so far with all of this is that you have some specific > PCI device (and therefore a driver). The simple-buses under it are > defined per BAR. Not really certain if that makes sense in all cases, > but since the address assignment is dynamic, it may have to. I'm also > not completely convinced we should reuse 'simple-bus' here or define > something specific like 'pci-bar-bus' or something. Good point. Labeling a new bus for this kind of 'appliance' could be beneficial to unify the dt overlay approach, and I guess it could be adopted by the aforementioned Bootlin's Microchip patchset too. However, since the difference with simple-bus would be basically non existent, I believe that this could be done in a future patch due to the fact that the dtbo is contained into the driver itself, so we do not suffer from the proliferation that happens when dtb are managed outside. > > > ranges = <0xc0 0x40000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x400000>; > > dma-ranges = <0x10 0x00 0x43000000 0x10 0x00 0x10 0x00>; > > ...... > > }; > > }; > > > > The pci@0,0 bridge node is automatically created by virtue of > > CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES, and has no dma-ranges, hence it implies 1:1 dma > > mappings (flags for this mapping are set to zero). The rp1@0 node has > > dma-ranges with flags set (0x43000000). Since 0x43000000 != 0x00 any translation > > will fail. > > It's possible that we should fill in 'dma-ranges' when making these > nodes rather than supporting missing dma-ranges here. I really think that filling dma-ranges for dynamically created pci nodes would be the correct approach. However, IMHO this does not imply that we could let inconsistent address (64 bit addr with 32 flag bit set) laying around the translation chain, and fixing that is currently working fine. I'd be then inclined to say the proposed change is outside the scope of the present patchset and to postpone it to a future patch. Many thanks, Andrea > > Rob
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:13 AM Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > Hi Rob, BTW, I noticed your email replies set "reply-to" to everyone in To and Cc. The result (with Gmail) is my reply lists everyone twice (in both To and Cc). "reply-to" is just supposed to be the 1 address you want replies sent to instead of the "from" address. > On 16:29 Mon 26 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:19 AM Andrea della Porta > > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > On 19:16 Tue 20 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 04:36:06PM +0200, Andrea della Porta wrote: > > > > > A missing or empty dma-ranges in a DT node implies a 1:1 mapping for dma > > > > > translations. In this specific case, rhe current behaviour is to zero out > > > > > > > > typo > > > > > > Fixed, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > the entire specifier so that the translation could be carried on as an > > > > > offset from zero. This includes address specifier that has flags (e.g. > > > > > PCI ranges). > > > > > Once the flags portion has been zeroed, the translation chain is broken > > > > > since the mapping functions will check the upcoming address specifier > > > > > > > > What does "upcoming address" mean? > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion, this means "address specifier (with valid flags) fed > > > to the translating functions and for which we are looking for a translation". > > > While this address has some valid flags set, it will fail the translation step > > > since the ranges it is matched against have flags zeroed out by the 1:1 mapping > > > condition. > > > > > > > > > > > > against mismatching flags, always failing the 1:1 mapping and its entire > > > > > purpose of always succeeding. > > > > > Set to zero only the address portion while passing the flags through. > > > > > > > > Can you point me to what the failing DT looks like. I'm puzzled how > > > > things would have worked for anyone. > > > > > > > > > > The following is a simplified and lightly edited) version of the resulting DT > > > from RPi5: > > > > > > pci@0,0 { > > > #address-cells = <0x03>; > > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > > ...... > > > device_type = "pci"; > > > compatible = "pci14e4,2712\0pciclass,060400\0pciclass,0604"; > > > ranges = <0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x600000>; > > > reg = <0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00>; > > > > > > ...... > > > > > > rp1@0 { > > > > What does 0 represent here? There's no 0 address in 'ranges' below. > > Since you said the parent is a PCI-PCI bridge, then the unit-address > > would have to be the PCI devfn and you are missing 'reg' (or omitted > > it). > > There's no reg property because the registers for RP1 are addressed > starting at 0x40108000 offset from BAR1. The devicetree specs says > that a missing reg node should not have any unit address specified > (and AFAIK there's no other special directives for simple-bus specified > in dt-bindings). > I've added @0 just to get rid of the following warning: > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /fragment@0/__overlay__/rp1: node has > a reg or ranges property, but no unit name It's still wrong as dtc only checks the unit-address is correct in a few cases with known bus types. > coming from make W=1 CHECK_DTBS=y broadcom/rp1.dtbo. > This is the exact same approach used by Bootlin patchset from: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240808154658.247873-2-herve.codina@bootlin.com/ It is not. First, that has a node for the PCI device (i.e. the LAN966x). You do not. You only have a PCI-PCI bridge and that is wrong. BTW, you should Cc Herve and others that are working on this feature. It is by no means fully sorted as you have found. > replied here below for convenience: > > + pci-ep-bus@0 { > + compatible = "simple-bus"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + /* > + * map @0xe2000000 (32MB) to BAR0 (CPU) > + * map @0xe0000000 (16MB) to BAR1 (AMBA) > + */ > + ranges = <0xe2000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x2000000 The 0 parent address here matches the unit-address, so all good in this case. > + 0xe0000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x1000000>; > > Also, I think it's not possible to know the devfn in advance, since the > DT part is pre-compiled as an overlay while the devfn number is coming from > bus enumeration. No. devfn is fixed unless you are plugging in a card in different slots. The bus number is the part that is not known and assigned by the OS, but you'll notice that is omitted. In any case, the RP1 node should be generated, so its devfn is irrelevant. > Since the registers for sub-peripherals will start (as stated in ranges > property) from 0xc040000000, I'd be inclined to use rp1@c040000000 as the > node name and address unit. Is it feasible? Yes, but that would be in nodes underneath ranges. Above, it is the parent bus we are talking about. > > > #address-cells = <0x02>; > > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > > compatible = "simple-bus"; > > > > The parent is a PCI-PCI bridge. Child nodes have to be PCI devices and > > "simple-bus" is not a PCI device. > > The simple-bus is needed to automatically traverse and create platform > devices in of_platform_populate(). It's true that RP1 is a PCI device, > but sub-peripherals of RP1 are platform devices so I guess this is > unavoidable right now. You are missing the point. A PCI-PCI bridge does not have a simple-bus. However, I think it's just what you pasted here that's wrong. From the looks of the RP1 driver and the overlay, it should be correct. It would also help if you dumped out what "lspci -tvnn" prints. > > The assumption so far with all of this is that you have some specific > > PCI device (and therefore a driver). The simple-buses under it are > > defined per BAR. Not really certain if that makes sense in all cases, > > but since the address assignment is dynamic, it may have to. I'm also > > not completely convinced we should reuse 'simple-bus' here or define > > something specific like 'pci-bar-bus' or something. > > Good point. Labeling a new bus for this kind of 'appliance' could be > beneficial to unify the dt overlay approach, and I guess it could be > adopted by the aforementioned Bootlin's Microchip patchset too. > However, since the difference with simple-bus would be basically non > existent, I believe that this could be done in a future patch due to > the fact that the dtbo is contained into the driver itself, so we do > not suffer from the proliferation that happens when dtb are managed > outside. It's an ABI, so we really need to decide first. > > > ranges = <0xc0 0x40000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x400000>; > > > dma-ranges = <0x10 0x00 0x43000000 0x10 0x00 0x10 0x00>; > > > ...... > > > }; > > > }; > > > > > > The pci@0,0 bridge node is automatically created by virtue of > > > CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES, and has no dma-ranges, hence it implies 1:1 dma > > > mappings (flags for this mapping are set to zero). The rp1@0 node has > > > dma-ranges with flags set (0x43000000). Since 0x43000000 != 0x00 any translation > > > will fail. > > > > It's possible that we should fill in 'dma-ranges' when making these > > nodes rather than supporting missing dma-ranges here. > > I really think that filling dma-ranges for dynamically created pci > nodes would be the correct approach. > However, IMHO this does not imply that we could let inconsistent > address (64 bit addr with 32 flag bit set) laying around the > translation chain, and fixing that is currently working fine. I'd > be then inclined to say the proposed change is outside the scope > of the present patchset and to postpone it to a future patch. Okay, but let's fix it with a test case. There's already a test case for all this in the DT unittest which can be extended. Rob
Hi Rob, On 08:18 Thu 29 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:13 AM Andrea della Porta > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > BTW, I noticed your email replies set "reply-to" to everyone in To and > Cc. The result (with Gmail) is my reply lists everyone twice (in both > To and Cc). "reply-to" is just supposed to be the 1 address you want > replies sent to instead of the "from" address. IIUC you're probably referring to Mail-Reply-To, that address only one recipient at a time (i.e. you want to reply only to the author). Reply-To is a catch-all that will work as a fallback when you hit either reply or reply-all in your client. In fact, neither Reply-To nor Mail-Reply-To are included in my emails, the interesting one being Mail-Followup-To, that should override any of the above mentioned headers (including To: and Cc:) for the reply all function. How these headers are interpreted depends solely on the mail client, I'm afraid. Is it possible that your client is mistakenly merging both Mail-Followup-To plus To and Cc lists? Anyway, I've disabled Mail-followup-To as it's added by mutt, can you please confirm that this mail now works for you? Hopefully it will not clobber the recipent list too much, since AFAIK that header was purposely invented to avoid such inconsistencies. > > > On 16:29 Mon 26 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:19 AM Andrea della Porta > > > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > On 19:16 Tue 20 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 04:36:06PM +0200, Andrea della Porta wrote: > > > > > > A missing or empty dma-ranges in a DT node implies a 1:1 mapping for dma > > > > > > translations. In this specific case, rhe current behaviour is to zero out > > > > > > > > > > typo > > > > > > > > Fixed, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the entire specifier so that the translation could be carried on as an > > > > > > offset from zero. This includes address specifier that has flags (e.g. > > > > > > PCI ranges). > > > > > > Once the flags portion has been zeroed, the translation chain is broken > > > > > > since the mapping functions will check the upcoming address specifier > > > > > > > > > > What does "upcoming address" mean? > > > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion, this means "address specifier (with valid flags) fed > > > > to the translating functions and for which we are looking for a translation". > > > > While this address has some valid flags set, it will fail the translation step > > > > since the ranges it is matched against have flags zeroed out by the 1:1 mapping > > > > condition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against mismatching flags, always failing the 1:1 mapping and its entire > > > > > > purpose of always succeeding. > > > > > > Set to zero only the address portion while passing the flags through. > > > > > > > > > > Can you point me to what the failing DT looks like. I'm puzzled how > > > > > things would have worked for anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following is a simplified and lightly edited) version of the resulting DT > > > > from RPi5: > > > > > > > > pci@0,0 { > > > > #address-cells = <0x03>; > > > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > > > ...... > > > > device_type = "pci"; > > > > compatible = "pci14e4,2712\0pciclass,060400\0pciclass,0604"; > > > > ranges = <0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x600000>; > > > > reg = <0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00>; > > > > > > > > ...... > > > > > > > > rp1@0 { > > > > > > What does 0 represent here? There's no 0 address in 'ranges' below. > > > Since you said the parent is a PCI-PCI bridge, then the unit-address > > > would have to be the PCI devfn and you are missing 'reg' (or omitted > > > it). > > > > There's no reg property because the registers for RP1 are addressed > > starting at 0x40108000 offset from BAR1. The devicetree specs says > > that a missing reg node should not have any unit address specified > > (and AFAIK there's no other special directives for simple-bus specified > > in dt-bindings). > > I've added @0 just to get rid of the following warning: > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /fragment@0/__overlay__/rp1: node has > > a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > It's still wrong as dtc only checks the unit-address is correct in a > few cases with known bus types. Sorry, I don't follow you on this, I'm probably missing something. Could you please add some details? > > > coming from make W=1 CHECK_DTBS=y broadcom/rp1.dtbo. > > This is the exact same approach used by Bootlin patchset from: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240808154658.247873-2-herve.codina@bootlin.com/ > > It is not. First, that has a node for the PCI device (i.e. the > LAN966x). You do not. You only have a PCI-PCI bridge and that is > wrong. I'm a little confused now, but I think the confusion is generated by the label node names I've chosen that are, admittedly, a bit sloppy. I'll try to make some clarity, please see below. > > BTW, you should Cc Herve and others that are working on this feature. > It is by no means fully sorted as you have found. Sure, just added, thanks for the heads up. > > > replied here below for convenience: > > > > + pci-ep-bus@0 { > > + compatible = "simple-bus"; > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > + > > + /* > > + * map @0xe2000000 (32MB) to BAR0 (CPU) > > + * map @0xe0000000 (16MB) to BAR1 (AMBA) > > + */ > > + ranges = <0xe2000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x2000000 > > The 0 parent address here matches the unit-address, so all good in this case. Just to be sure, the parent address being the triple zeros in the ranges property, right? > > > + 0xe0000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x1000000>; > > > > Also, I think it's not possible to know the devfn in advance, since the > > DT part is pre-compiled as an overlay while the devfn number is coming from > > bus enumeration. > > No. devfn is fixed unless you are plugging in a card in different > slots. The bus number is the part that is not known and assigned by > the OS, but you'll notice that is omitted. > > In any case, the RP1 node should be generated, so its devfn is irrelevant. Which is a possibility, since the driver should possibly work also with RP1 mounted on a PCI card, one day. But as you pointed out, since this is automatically generated, should not be a concern. > > > Since the registers for sub-peripherals will start (as stated in ranges > > property) from 0xc040000000, I'd be inclined to use rp1@c040000000 as the > > node name and address unit. Is it feasible? > > Yes, but that would be in nodes underneath ranges. Above, it is the > parent bus we are talking about. Right. > > > > > #address-cells = <0x02>; > > > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > > > compatible = "simple-bus"; > > > > > > The parent is a PCI-PCI bridge. Child nodes have to be PCI devices and > > > "simple-bus" is not a PCI device. > > > > The simple-bus is needed to automatically traverse and create platform > > devices in of_platform_populate(). It's true that RP1 is a PCI device, > > but sub-peripherals of RP1 are platform devices so I guess this is > > unavoidable right now. > > You are missing the point. A PCI-PCI bridge does not have a > simple-bus. However, I think it's just what you pasted here that's > wrong. From the looks of the RP1 driver and the overlay, it should be > correct. Trying to clarify: at first I thought of my rp1 node (in the dtso) as the pci endpoint device, but I now see that it should be intended as just the bus attached to the real endpoint device (which is the dynamically generated dev@0,0). In this sense, rp1 is probably a really wrong name, let's say we use the same name from Bootlin, i.e. pci-ep-bus. The DT tree would then be: pci@0,0 <- auto generated, this represent the pci bridge dev@0,0 <- auto generated, this represent the pci ednpoint device, a.k.a. the RP1 pci-ep-bus <- added from dtbo, this is the simple-bus to which peripherals are attached this view is much like Bootlin's approach, also my pci-ep-bus node now would look like this: ... pci-ep-bus@0 { ranges = <0xc0 0x40000000 0x01 0x00 0x00000000 0x00 0x00400000>; ... }; and also the correct unit address here is 0 again, since the parent address in ranges is 0x01 0x00 0x00000000 (0x01 is the flags and in this case represent BAR1, I assume that for the unit address I should use only the address part that is 0, right?). > > It would also help if you dumped out what "lspci -tvnn" prints. > Here it is: localhost:~ # lspci -tvnn -[0002:00]---00.0-[01]----00.0 Raspberry Pi Ltd RP1 PCIe 2.0 South Bridge [1de4:0001] > > > The assumption so far with all of this is that you have some specific > > > PCI device (and therefore a driver). The simple-buses under it are > > > defined per BAR. Not really certain if that makes sense in all cases, > > > but since the address assignment is dynamic, it may have to. I'm also > > > not completely convinced we should reuse 'simple-bus' here or define > > > something specific like 'pci-bar-bus' or something. > > > > Good point. Labeling a new bus for this kind of 'appliance' could be > > beneficial to unify the dt overlay approach, and I guess it could be > > adopted by the aforementioned Bootlin's Microchip patchset too. > > However, since the difference with simple-bus would be basically non > > existent, I believe that this could be done in a future patch due to > > the fact that the dtbo is contained into the driver itself, so we do > > not suffer from the proliferation that happens when dtb are managed > > outside. > > It's an ABI, so we really need to decide first. Okay. How should we proceed? > > > > > ranges = <0xc0 0x40000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x400000>; > > > > dma-ranges = <0x10 0x00 0x43000000 0x10 0x00 0x10 0x00>; > > > > ...... > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > The pci@0,0 bridge node is automatically created by virtue of > > > > CONFIG_PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES, and has no dma-ranges, hence it implies 1:1 dma > > > > mappings (flags for this mapping are set to zero). The rp1@0 node has > > > > dma-ranges with flags set (0x43000000). Since 0x43000000 != 0x00 any translation > > > > will fail. > > > > > > It's possible that we should fill in 'dma-ranges' when making these > > > nodes rather than supporting missing dma-ranges here. > > > > I really think that filling dma-ranges for dynamically created pci > > nodes would be the correct approach. > > However, IMHO this does not imply that we could let inconsistent > > address (64 bit addr with 32 flag bit set) laying around the > > translation chain, and fixing that is currently working fine. I'd > > be then inclined to say the proposed change is outside the scope > > of the present patchset and to postpone it to a future patch. > > Okay, but let's fix it with a test case. There's already a test case > for all this in the DT unittest which can be extended. I'm taking a look at the unittest framework right now. Many thanks, Andrea > > Rob
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 11:26 AM Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 08:18 Thu 29 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:13 AM Andrea della Porta > > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > BTW, I noticed your email replies set "reply-to" to everyone in To and > > Cc. The result (with Gmail) is my reply lists everyone twice (in both > > To and Cc). "reply-to" is just supposed to be the 1 address you want > > replies sent to instead of the "from" address. > > IIUC you're probably referring to Mail-Reply-To, that address only one recipient > at a time (i.e. you want to reply only to the author). Reply-To is a catch-all > that will work as a fallback when you hit either reply or reply-all in your client. > In fact, neither Reply-To nor Mail-Reply-To are included in my emails, the > interesting one being Mail-Followup-To, that should override any of the above > mentioned headers (including To: and Cc:) for the reply all function. How these > headers are interpreted depends solely on the mail client, I'm afraid. > Is it possible that your client is mistakenly merging both Mail-Followup-To > plus To and Cc lists? Indeed, the UI displays 'reply-to' but the source shows Mail-Followup-To which I'd never heard of. From reading up on it, I agree the client, Gmail web interface, handles it incorrectly. Not really anything I can do to fix Gmail though... > Anyway, I've disabled Mail-followup-To as it's added by mutt, can you please > confirm that this mail now works for you? Hopefully it will not clobber the > recipent list too much, since AFAIK that header was purposely invented to avoid > such inconsistencies. Seems fine now. My brief read of the header is it is to avoid receiving multiple copies depending if you are subscribed to a list or not. But listing out every other address except your own seems like an odd way to implement "omit From" in replies. You're still going to get N copies from N lists as well. I guess it made some sense to some people... > > > On 16:29 Mon 26 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 3:19 AM Andrea della Porta > > > > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > On 19:16 Tue 20 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 04:36:06PM +0200, Andrea della Porta wrote: > > > > > > > A missing or empty dma-ranges in a DT node implies a 1:1 mapping for dma > > > > > > > translations. In this specific case, rhe current behaviour is to zero out > > > > > > > > > > > > typo > > > > > > > > > > Fixed, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the entire specifier so that the translation could be carried on as an > > > > > > > offset from zero. This includes address specifier that has flags (e.g. > > > > > > > PCI ranges). > > > > > > > Once the flags portion has been zeroed, the translation chain is broken > > > > > > > since the mapping functions will check the upcoming address specifier > > > > > > > > > > > > What does "upcoming address" mean? > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion, this means "address specifier (with valid flags) fed > > > > > to the translating functions and for which we are looking for a translation". > > > > > While this address has some valid flags set, it will fail the translation step > > > > > since the ranges it is matched against have flags zeroed out by the 1:1 mapping > > > > > condition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against mismatching flags, always failing the 1:1 mapping and its entire > > > > > > > purpose of always succeeding. > > > > > > > Set to zero only the address portion while passing the flags through. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you point me to what the failing DT looks like. I'm puzzled how > > > > > > things would have worked for anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following is a simplified and lightly edited) version of the resulting DT > > > > > from RPi5: > > > > > > > > > > pci@0,0 { > > > > > #address-cells = <0x03>; > > > > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > > > > ...... > > > > > device_type = "pci"; > > > > > compatible = "pci14e4,2712\0pciclass,060400\0pciclass,0604"; > > > > > ranges = <0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x82000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x600000>; > > > > > reg = <0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00>; > > > > > > > > > > ...... > > > > > > > > > > rp1@0 { > > > > > > > > What does 0 represent here? There's no 0 address in 'ranges' below. > > > > Since you said the parent is a PCI-PCI bridge, then the unit-address > > > > would have to be the PCI devfn and you are missing 'reg' (or omitted > > > > it). > > > > > > There's no reg property because the registers for RP1 are addressed > > > starting at 0x40108000 offset from BAR1. The devicetree specs says > > > that a missing reg node should not have any unit address specified > > > (and AFAIK there's no other special directives for simple-bus specified > > > in dt-bindings). > > > I've added @0 just to get rid of the following warning: > > > > > > Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /fragment@0/__overlay__/rp1: node has > > > a reg or ranges property, but no unit name > > > > It's still wrong as dtc only checks the unit-address is correct in a > > few cases with known bus types. > > Sorry, I don't follow you on this, I'm probably missing something. Could > you please add some details? dtc only checks unit-address matches reg/ranges for simple-bus, pci, i2c, and spi. Since this case is none of them, there is no warning and it is left to reviewers to check. The warnings are often a clue something is wrong and the easy fix is often not the right one. This is still an area the tooling needs improvements on. > > > > > coming from make W=1 CHECK_DTBS=y broadcom/rp1.dtbo. > > > This is the exact same approach used by Bootlin patchset from: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240808154658.247873-2-herve.codina@bootlin.com/ > > > > It is not. First, that has a node for the PCI device (i.e. the > > LAN966x). You do not. You only have a PCI-PCI bridge and that is > > wrong. > > I'm a little confused now, but I think the confusion is generated by > the label node names I've chosen that are, admittedly, a bit sloppy. > I'll try to make some clarity, please see below. > > > > > BTW, you should Cc Herve and others that are working on this feature. > > It is by no means fully sorted as you have found. > > Sure, just added, thanks for the heads up. > > > > > > replied here below for convenience: > > > > > > + pci-ep-bus@0 { > > > + compatible = "simple-bus"; > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * map @0xe2000000 (32MB) to BAR0 (CPU) > > > + * map @0xe0000000 (16MB) to BAR1 (AMBA) > > > + */ > > > + ranges = <0xe2000000 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x2000000 > > > > The 0 parent address here matches the unit-address, so all good in this case. > > Just to be sure, the parent address being the triple zeros in the ranges property, > right? Yes. > > > > > > + 0xe0000000 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x1000000>; > > > > > > Also, I think it's not possible to know the devfn in advance, since the > > > DT part is pre-compiled as an overlay while the devfn number is coming from > > > bus enumeration. > > > > No. devfn is fixed unless you are plugging in a card in different > > slots. The bus number is the part that is not known and assigned by > > the OS, but you'll notice that is omitted. > > > > In any case, the RP1 node should be generated, so its devfn is irrelevant. > > Which is a possibility, since the driver should possibly work also with RP1 > mounted on a PCI card, one day. But as you pointed out, since this is automatically > generated, should not be a concern. > > > > > > Since the registers for sub-peripherals will start (as stated in ranges > > > property) from 0xc040000000, I'd be inclined to use rp1@c040000000 as the > > > node name and address unit. Is it feasible? > > > > Yes, but that would be in nodes underneath ranges. Above, it is the > > parent bus we are talking about. > > Right. > > > > > > > > #address-cells = <0x02>; > > > > > #size-cells = <0x02>; > > > > > compatible = "simple-bus"; > > > > > > > > The parent is a PCI-PCI bridge. Child nodes have to be PCI devices and > > > > "simple-bus" is not a PCI device. > > > > > > The simple-bus is needed to automatically traverse and create platform > > > devices in of_platform_populate(). It's true that RP1 is a PCI device, > > > but sub-peripherals of RP1 are platform devices so I guess this is > > > unavoidable right now. > > > > You are missing the point. A PCI-PCI bridge does not have a > > simple-bus. However, I think it's just what you pasted here that's > > wrong. From the looks of the RP1 driver and the overlay, it should be > > correct. > > Trying to clarify: at first I thought of my rp1 node (in the dtso) as the pci > endpoint device, but I now see that it should be intended as just the bus > attached to the real endpoint device (which is the dynamically generated dev@0,0). > In this sense, rp1 is probably a really wrong name, let's say we use the same > name from Bootlin, i.e. pci-ep-bus. The DT tree would then be: > > pci@0,0 <- auto generated, this represent the pci bridge Or root port specifically. > dev@0,0 <- auto generated, this represent the pci ednpoint device, a.k.a. the RP1 > pci-ep-bus <- added from dtbo, this is the simple-bus to which peripherals are attached > > this view is much like Bootlin's approach, also my pci-ep-bus node now would look > like this: > ... > pci-ep-bus@0 { > ranges = <0xc0 0x40000000 > 0x01 0x00 0x00000000 > 0x00 0x00400000>; > ... > }; > > and also the correct unit address here is 0 again, since the parent address in > ranges is 0x01 0x00 0x00000000 (0x01 is the flags and in this case represent > BAR1, I assume that for the unit address I should use only the address part that > is 0, right?). No, it should be 1 for BAR1. It's 1 node per BAR. > > > > > It would also help if you dumped out what "lspci -tvnn" prints. > > > > Here it is: > > localhost:~ # lspci -tvnn > -[0002:00]---00.0-[01]----00.0 Raspberry Pi Ltd RP1 PCIe 2.0 South Bridge [1de4:0001] Right, so that matches what you now have above. > > > > The assumption so far with all of this is that you have some specific > > > > PCI device (and therefore a driver). The simple-buses under it are > > > > defined per BAR. Not really certain if that makes sense in all cases, > > > > but since the address assignment is dynamic, it may have to. I'm also > > > > not completely convinced we should reuse 'simple-bus' here or define > > > > something specific like 'pci-bar-bus' or something. > > > > > > Good point. Labeling a new bus for this kind of 'appliance' could be > > > beneficial to unify the dt overlay approach, and I guess it could be > > > adopted by the aforementioned Bootlin's Microchip patchset too. > > > However, since the difference with simple-bus would be basically non > > > existent, I believe that this could be done in a future patch due to > > > the fact that the dtbo is contained into the driver itself, so we do > > > not suffer from the proliferation that happens when dtb are managed > > > outside. > > > > It's an ABI, so we really need to decide first. > > Okay. How should we proceed? I think simple-bus where you have it is fine. It is really 1 level up that needs to be specified. Basically something that's referenced from the specific PCI device's schema (e.g. the RP1 schema (which you are missing)). That schema needs to roughly look like this: properties: "#address-cells": const: 3 "#size-cells": const: 2 ranges: minItems: 1 maxItems: 6 items: additionalItems: true items: - maximum: 5 # The BAR number - const: 0 - const: 0 - # TODO: valid PCI memory flags patternProperties: "^bar-bus@[0-5]$": type: object additionalProperties: true properties: compatible: const: simple-bus ranges: true There were some discussions around interrupt handling that might also factor into this. Rob
Hi Rob, On 14:37 Fri 30 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 11:26 AM Andrea della Porta > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > ... > > I think simple-bus where you have it is fine. It is really 1 level up > that needs to be specified. Basically something that's referenced from > the specific PCI device's schema (e.g. the RP1 schema (which you are > missing)). > > That schema needs to roughly look like this: > > properties: > "#address-cells": > const: 3 > "#size-cells": > const: 2 > ranges: > minItems: 1 > maxItems: 6 > items: > additionalItems: true > items: > - maximum: 5 # The BAR number > - const: 0 > - const: 0 > - # TODO: valid PCI memory flags > > patternProperties: > "^bar-bus@[0-5]$": > type: object > additionalProperties: true > properties: > compatible: > const: simple-bus > ranges: true > Hmmm.. not sure how this is going to work. The PCI device (RP1) will havei, at runtime, a compatible like this: compatible = "pci1de4,1\0pciclass,0200000\0pciclass,0200"; that is basically generated automatically by the OF framework. So, in the schema you proposed above, I can put something like: properties: compatible: contains: pattern: '^pci1de4,1' or maybe I could omit the compatible entirely, like in: https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-iommu.yaml that seems to refer to generic compatible values. In both cases though, I don't see how these binding could work with make dt_binding_check, since there's no compatible known at compile time (for the first approach), or no compatible at all (the second approach). Is it intended only as a loose documentation? Or are you proposing that for a future new bus (hence with a new, specific, compatible) that could be described by the schema above? Many thanks, Andrea > There were some discussions around interrupt handling that might also > factor into this. > > Rob
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 11:15 AM Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 14:37 Fri 30 Aug , Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 11:26 AM Andrea della Porta > > <andrea.porta@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > ... > > > > > I think simple-bus where you have it is fine. It is really 1 level up > > that needs to be specified. Basically something that's referenced from > > the specific PCI device's schema (e.g. the RP1 schema (which you are > > missing)). > > > > That schema needs to roughly look like this: > > > > properties: > > "#address-cells": > > const: 3 > > "#size-cells": > > const: 2 > > ranges: > > minItems: 1 > > maxItems: 6 > > items: > > additionalItems: true > > items: > > - maximum: 5 # The BAR number > > - const: 0 > > - const: 0 > > - # TODO: valid PCI memory flags > > > > patternProperties: > > "^bar-bus@[0-5]$": > > type: object > > additionalProperties: true > > properties: > > compatible: > > const: simple-bus > > ranges: true > > > > Hmmm.. not sure how this is going to work. The PCI device (RP1) will > havei, at runtime, a compatible like this: > > compatible = "pci1de4,1\0pciclass,0200000\0pciclass,0200"; > > that is basically generated automatically by the OF framework. So, in the > schema you proposed above, I can put something like: > > properties: > compatible: > contains: > pattern: '^pci1de4,1' No, it should be like this: compatible: items: - const: pci1de4,1 - const: pciclass,0200000 - const: pciclass,0200 or compatible: addtionalItems: true maxItems: 3 items: - const: pci1de4,1 Alternatively, we could instead only generate 'pciclass' compatibles for bridge nodes. The reason being that being an ethernet controller doesn't really tell us anything. There's no standard interface associated with that class. > or maybe I could omit the compatible entirely, like in: No. > https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-iommu.yaml That's not a device node, but just part of pci-host-bridge.yaml. > that seems to refer to generic compatible values. > In both cases though, I don't see how these binding could work with > make dt_binding_check, since there's no compatible known at compile > time (for the first approach), or no compatible at all (the second > approach). > Is it intended only as a loose documentation? No, schemas define exactly what a binding can and can't contain. But they are divided into device schemas and common schemas. The latter are incomplete and are included by the former. Generally, "compatible" goes in device schemas. > Or are you proposing that for a future new bus (hence with a new, specific, > compatible) that could be described by the schema above? The above schema would be the common schema included by a RP1 schema, LAN966x schema, or any other device doing the same thing. Rob
diff --git a/drivers/of/address.c b/drivers/of/address.c index d669ce25b5f9..5a6d55a67aa8 100644 --- a/drivers/of/address.c +++ b/drivers/of/address.c @@ -443,7 +443,8 @@ static int of_translate_one(struct device_node *parent, struct of_bus *bus, } if (ranges == NULL || rlen == 0) { offset = of_read_number(addr, na); - memset(addr, 0, pna * 4); + /* copy the address while preserving the flags */ + memset(addr + pbus->flag_cells, 0, (pna - pbus->flag_cells) * 4); pr_debug("empty ranges; 1:1 translation\n"); goto finish; }
A missing or empty dma-ranges in a DT node implies a 1:1 mapping for dma translations. In this specific case, rhe current behaviour is to zero out the entire specifier so that the translation could be carried on as an offset from zero. This includes address specifier that has flags (e.g. PCI ranges). Once the flags portion has been zeroed, the translation chain is broken since the mapping functions will check the upcoming address specifier against mismatching flags, always failing the 1:1 mapping and its entire purpose of always succeeding. Set to zero only the address portion while passing the flags through. Signed-off-by: Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@suse.com> --- drivers/of/address.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)