On 09/19/2018 11:26 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > 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.
Well, where is an example of that ? Because I am not seeing one. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
