On 08/09/2018 01:24 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 05:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:39 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/08/2018 03:14 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The PCI controller can have DT subnodes describing extra properties
>>>>>>>> of particular PCI devices, ie. a PHY attached to an EHCI controller
>>>>>>>> on a PCI bus. This patch parses those DT subnodes and assigns a node
>>>>>>>> to the PCI device instance, so that the driver can extract details
>>>>>>>> from that node and ie. configure the PHY using the PHY subsystem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>> index 46e9c71bdf..306bea0dbf 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-uclass.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ static int pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct udevice
>>>>>>>> *parent,
>>>>>>>> for (id = entry->match;
>>>>>>>> id->vendor || id->subvendor || id->class_mask;
>>>>>>>> id++) {
>>>>>>>> + ofnode node;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> if (!pci_match_one_id(id, find_id))
>>>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -691,6 +693,18 @@ static int pci_find_and_bind_driver(struct
>>>>>>>> udevice *parent,
>>>>>>>> goto error;
>>>>>>>> debug("%s: Match found: %s\n", __func__,
>>>>>>>> drv->name);
>>>>>>>> dev->driver_data = find_id->driver_data;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + dev_for_each_subnode(node, parent) {
>>>>>>>> + phys_addr_t df, size;
>>>>>>>> + df = ofnode_get_addr_size(node, "reg",
>>>>>>>> &size);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + if (PCI_FUNC(df) == PCI_FUNC(bdf) &&
>>>>>>>> + PCI_DEV(df) == PCI_DEV(bdf)) {
>>>>>>>> + dev->node = node;
>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The function pci_find_and_bind_driver() is supposed to bind devices
>>>>>>> that are NOT in the device tree. Adding device tree access in this
>>>>>>> routine is quite odd. You can add the EHCI controller that need such
>>>>>>> PHY subnodes in the device tree and there is no need to modify
>>>>>>> anything I believe. If you are looking for an example, please check
>>>>>>> pciuart0 in arch/x86/dts/crownbay.dts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well this does not work for me, the EHCI PCI doesn't get a DT node
>>>>>> assigned, check r8a7794.dtsi for the PCI devices I use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that's because you don't specify a "compatible" string for
>>>>> these two EHCI PCI nodes.
>>>>
>>>> That's perfectly fine, why should I specify it ? Linux has no problem
>>>> with it either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without a "compatible" string, DM does not bind any device in the
>>> device tree to a driver, hence no device node created. This is not
>>> Linux.
>>
>> DT is NOT Linux specific, it is OS-agnostic, DT describes hardware and
>> hardware only. If U-Boot cannot parse DT correctly, U-Boot is broken and
>> must be fixed.
>>
>> This is a fix. If there is a better fix, I am open to it.
>>
>
> Sorry this is a hack to current U-Boot implementation, not fix.
I am waiting for a better solution or suggestion ...
> The fix should be adding "ehci-pci" compatible string in the r8a7794.dtsi.
Wrong. The DT is perfectly valid as is.
The device sitting at a particular slot/function can very well be ie.
xhci controller and the DT node would be valid for it too, unless you
enforce a compatible, which will mess things up.
Each PCI device already has a PCI ID and class which is used to identify
it and based on which the drivers bind to it, so a DT compatible is NOT
needed and is actually redundant and harmful.
What is needed here is to assign a valid DT node to a driver instance of
a PCI device if such a matching node exists in DT and that is all this
patch does.
> I disagree DT is OS-agnostic. This are lots of stuff in DT that are
> OS-specific. eg: there are lots of bindings in DT that requires
> Linux's device driver framework to work with.
This logic is flawed. If there exists a binding which depends on some
behavior of specific OS then the binding is likely wrong. That
specifically does not imply DT is OS-specific. Again, it is not and that
is by design. The DT must be usable by multiple OSes with very different
internal design, Solaris, *BSD, Linux, U-Boot to name a few.
> As you said, DT is just
> a standard to describe hardware and hardware only. But there are
> various methods to describe hardware in DT that's why we have a proper
> defined bindings in Linux.
defined bindings, yes. In Linux ... no ... the HW is OS-independent, so
is it's description in DT.
> How OS parses and utilizes these
> information is completely on their own.
>
> Regards,
> Bin
>
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
