On 09/14/2018 06:41 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 10 September 2018 at 01:38, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 ? > > You can test that your code actually attaches the DT node to the > probed device. Without you code the test would fail. Wit it, it would > pass.
Well it won't, because the sandbox swap_case.c requires the compatible. This all seems like a big hack to support virtual PCI devices. The driver binds with a compatible and then pins the read/write config reg accessors to emulate their return values. Those include PCI IDs. So you cannot instantiate virtual PCI device without this compatible string and thus also cannot write such a test easily. Now I also understand where this whole discussion about compatible strings came from though. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
