Hi Marek, On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:01 PM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 sandbox swap_case.c indeed supports dynamic driver binding, just like real PCI devices. Please check doc/driver-model/pci-info.txt (since you were modifying the same doc, I guess you missed that part ..) > 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. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
