> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 6:17 PM
> To: miaoyubo <miaoy...@huawei.com>
> Cc: peter.mayd...@linaro.org; shannon.zha...@gmail.com; Xiexiangyou
> <xiexiang...@huawei.com>; imamm...@redhat.com; qemu-
> de...@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] pci-expender-bus:Add pcie-root-port to pxb-pcie
> under arm.
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 03:49:52PM +0800, Yubo Miao wrote:
> > From: miaoyubo <miaoy...@huawei.com>
> >
> > Since devices could not directly plugged into pxb-pcie,
>
> Hmm is this different from the root port? intergrated devices do exist for
> that actually.
>
Thanks for replying
The pxb-pcie is like a host bridge,
you have to plug pcie-root-port or pci-bridge so devices could be plugged
> > under arm,
>
> how is arm special?
>
Cureently, if u define a pxb-pcie device, one pcie-root-port or pci-bridge or
something
else have to be defined also, The patch just auto generate pcie-root-port for
arm to
avoid affect other architecture
> > one
> > pcie-root port is plugged into pxb-pcie. Due to the bus for each
> > pxb-pcie is defined as 2 in acpi dsdt tables(one for pxb-pcie, one for
> > pcie-root-port), only one device could be plugged into one pxb-pcie.
>
> So why can't we have users specify any number of root ports using -device?
> then make acpi tables match the # of ports created?
>
>
Users could specify multiply pxb-devices, it is supported.
But only one device could be plugged for each pxb-pcie, it is the same with
pxb-pci for piix.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: miaoyubo <miaoy...@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c | 9 +++++++++
> > include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c
> > b/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c
> > index 47aaaf8fd1..3d896dd452 100644
> > --- a/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c
> > +++ b/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > #include "hw/pci/pci.h"
> > #include "hw/pci/pci_bus.h"
> > #include "hw/pci/pci_host.h"
> > +#include "hw/pci/pcie_port.h"
> > #include "hw/qdev-properties.h"
> > #include "hw/pci/pci_bridge.h"
> > #include "qemu/range.h"
> > @@ -233,7 +234,15 @@ static void pxb_dev_realize_common(PCIDevice
> > *dev, bool pcie, Error **errp)
> >
> > ds = qdev_create(NULL, TYPE_PXB_HOST);
> > if (pcie) {
> > +#ifdef __aarch64__
> > + bus = pci_root_bus_new(ds, "pxb-pcie-internal",
> > + NULL, NULL, 0, TYPE_PXB_PCIE_BUS);
> > + bds = qdev_create(BUS(bus), "pcie-root-port");
> > + bds->id = dev_name;
> > + qdev_prop_set_uint8(bds, PCIE_ROOT_PORT_PROP_CHASSIS,
> > +pxb->bus_nr); #else
> > bus = pci_root_bus_new(ds, dev_name, NULL, NULL, 0,
> > TYPE_PXB_PCIE_BUS);
> > +#endif
>
> What does all this have to do with building on aarch64?
>
Based on the comments, this patch would be abandoned in patch V2,
PXB-PCIE would also be useful but pcie-root-port or pci-bridge have to Be
defined by user.
> > } else {
> > bus = pci_root_bus_new(ds, "pxb-internal", NULL, NULL, 0,
> TYPE_PXB_BUS);
> > bds = qdev_create(BUS(bus), "pci-bridge"); diff --git
> > a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h index
> > 4b3d254b08..b41d473220 100644
> > --- a/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h
> > +++ b/include/hw/pci/pcie_port.h
> > @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ int pcie_chassis_add_slot(struct PCIESlot *slot);
> > void pcie_chassis_del_slot(PCIESlot *s);
> >
> > #define TYPE_PCIE_ROOT_PORT "pcie-root-port-base"
> > +#define PCIE_ROOT_PORT_PROP_CHASSIS "chassis"
>
> If you are going to do this, replace other instances of "chassis"
> with the macro.
>
Thanks for your replay, this patch would be abandoned.
> > #define PCIE_ROOT_PORT_CLASS(klass) \
> > OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(PCIERootPortClass, (klass),
> > TYPE_PCIE_ROOT_PORT) #define PCIE_ROOT_PORT_GET_CLASS(obj) \
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >
Regards,
Miao
