On 09/02/2018 03:07 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, Hi,
> On 1 September 2018 at 16:45, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 09/01/2018 11:50 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> On 30 August 2018 at 07:42, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 08/30/2018 03:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:07 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/29/2018 05:15 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >>>>>>> +Simon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:22 PM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/24/2018 08:27 PM, Marek Vasut 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> >>>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, bump ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the only missing patch to get my hardware working properly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think we ever had an agreement on the v1 patch. Simon had a >>>>>>> long email that pointed out what Linux does seems like a 'fallback' to >>>>>>> find a node with no compatible string. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Back to this, if we have to go with this way, please create a test >>>>>>> case to cover this scenario. >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact that it works on a particular board is not tested enough? >>>>>> Do we need a custom, special, synthetic test ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe that's always been the requirement against the DM code >>>>> changes. I was requested in the past when I changed something in the >>>>> DM and I see other people were asked to do so. Like Alex said, it does >>>>> not mean this patch was not tested enough, but to ensure future >>>>> commits won't break this. >>>> >>>> So, do you have any suggestion how to implement this test ? It seems >>>> Alex posed the same question. It doesn't seem to be trivial in the >>>> context of sandbox. >>> >>> I suppose you need a PCI_DEVICE() declaration for sandbox, with an >>> associated DT node and no compatible string. Then check that you can >>> locate the device and that it read a DT property correctly. >> >> Is there any example of this stuff already ? > > See the bottom of swap_case.c. You might be able to add a new one of those, > > If you look at pci-controller2 in test.dts it has a device with a > compatible string. You could try adding a second device with no > compatible string. And how does that test anything ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
