Hi Marek, On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:21 PM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09/18/2018 03:52 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > > > On 18 September 2018 at 13:36, 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 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. > > > > The compatible string is needed for the emulation driver but not for > > the thing that connects to it. However as things stand you can't > > attach an emulator to a bus without nesting it under the device which > > it attaches to. > > > > I suspect the best answer is to move the emulator so it is a direct > > child of the bus. You would need to update sandbox_pci_get_emul() to > > call device_find_first_child() on 'bus' instead of 'dev'. > > Sounds to me _way_ out of scope for this patchset.
Dynamic binding is already supported on Sandbox. I guess Simon may have missed the part. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
