Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 20/04/17 09:20, Mason wrote: > On 19/04/2017 13:19, Mason wrote: > >> My biggest problem is that tango_unmask() is never called. > > FTR, the missing incantation was: > Explicitly calling tango_{mask/unmask/ack} from the corresponding > msi_{mask/unmask/ack} Using irq_chip_mask_parent and

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 20/04/17 09:20, Mason wrote: > On 19/04/2017 13:19, Mason wrote: > >> My biggest problem is that tango_unmask() is never called. > > FTR, the missing incantation was: > Explicitly calling tango_{mask/unmask/ack} from the corresponding > msi_{mask/unmask/ack} Using irq_chip_mask_parent and

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 19/04/2017 13:19, Mason wrote: > My biggest problem is that tango_unmask() is never called. FTR, the missing incantation was: Explicitly calling tango_{mask/unmask/ack} from the corresponding msi_{mask/unmask/ack} Marc, I have one nagging doubt, wrt splitting MSI line selection and MSI

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 19/04/2017 13:19, Mason wrote: > My biggest problem is that tango_unmask() is never called. FTR, the missing incantation was: Explicitly calling tango_{mask/unmask/ack} from the corresponding msi_{mask/unmask/ack} Marc, I have one nagging doubt, wrt splitting MSI line selection and MSI

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 12/04/2017 11:59, Marc Zyngier wrote: > And that's *wrong*. I've repeatedly said that you only need to deal with > *your* irqchip. End of story. Nowhere else. Please leave the MSI irqchip > alone, it is very unlikely that you have to provide anything at all to it. Hello Marc, I am hoping you

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 12/04/2017 11:59, Marc Zyngier wrote: > And that's *wrong*. I've repeatedly said that you only need to deal with > *your* irqchip. End of story. Nowhere else. Please leave the MSI irqchip > alone, it is very unlikely that you have to provide anything at all to it. Hello Marc, I am hoping you

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 12/04/17 10:50, Mason wrote: > On 12/04/2017 10:08, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 11/04/17 18:52, Mason wrote: >> >>> so data->irq is the virq (30, 34, 35, 36) >>> and data->hwirq is the domain hwirq (0, 524288, 524289, 524290) >>> >>> Is there a way to map hwirq 524288 to MSI 0, hwirq 524289 to

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 12/04/17 10:50, Mason wrote: > On 12/04/2017 10:08, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 11/04/17 18:52, Mason wrote: >> >>> so data->irq is the virq (30, 34, 35, 36) >>> and data->hwirq is the domain hwirq (0, 524288, 524289, 524290) >>> >>> Is there a way to map hwirq 524288 to MSI 0, hwirq 524289 to

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 12/04/2017 10:08, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 11/04/17 18:52, Mason wrote: > >> so data->irq is the virq (30, 34, 35, 36) >> and data->hwirq is the domain hwirq (0, 524288, 524289, 524290) >> >> Is there a way to map hwirq 524288 to MSI 0, hwirq 524289 to MSI 1, etc? > > Why would you need to

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 12/04/2017 10:08, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 11/04/17 18:52, Mason wrote: > >> so data->irq is the virq (30, 34, 35, 36) >> and data->hwirq is the domain hwirq (0, 524288, 524289, 524290) >> >> Is there a way to map hwirq 524288 to MSI 0, hwirq 524289 to MSI 1, etc? > > Why would you need to

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/17 18:52, Mason wrote: > On 11/04/2017 18:43, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 11/04/17 17:26, Mason wrote: >> >>> Is there a function to map virq to the hwirq in any domain? >> >> Be more precise. If you want the hwirq associated with the view of a >> virq in a given domain, that's the hwirq

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/17 18:52, Mason wrote: > On 11/04/2017 18:43, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 11/04/17 17:26, Mason wrote: >> >>> Is there a function to map virq to the hwirq in any domain? >> >> Be more precise. If you want the hwirq associated with the view of a >> virq in a given domain, that's the hwirq

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/2017 18:43, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 11/04/17 17:26, Mason wrote: > >> Is there a function to map virq to the hwirq in any domain? > > Be more precise. If you want the hwirq associated with the view of a > virq in a given domain, that's the hwirq field in the corresponding > irq_data

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/2017 18:43, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 11/04/17 17:26, Mason wrote: > >> Is there a function to map virq to the hwirq in any domain? > > Be more precise. If you want the hwirq associated with the view of a > virq in a given domain, that's the hwirq field in the corresponding > irq_data

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/17 17:26, Mason wrote: > On 11/04/2017 17:49, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 11/04/17 16:13, Mason wrote: >>> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> Here's what your system looks like: PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC MSIIRQ

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/17 17:26, Mason wrote: > On 11/04/2017 17:49, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 11/04/17 16:13, Mason wrote: >>> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> Here's what your system looks like: PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC MSIIRQ

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/2017 17:49, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 11/04/17 16:13, Mason wrote: >> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> Here's what your system looks like: >>> >>> PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC >>> MSIIRQ >>> >>> A PCI MSI is always edge. No ifs, no

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/2017 17:49, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 11/04/17 16:13, Mason wrote: >> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> Here's what your system looks like: >>> >>> PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC >>> MSIIRQ >>> >>> A PCI MSI is always edge. No ifs, no

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/17 16:13, Mason wrote: > On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> Here's what your system looks like: >> >> PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC >> MSIIRQ >> >> A PCI MSI is always edge. No ifs, no buts. That's what it is, and nothing >> else.

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 11/04/17 16:13, Mason wrote: > On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> Here's what your system looks like: >> >> PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC >> MSIIRQ >> >> A PCI MSI is always edge. No ifs, no buts. That's what it is, and nothing >> else.

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Here's what your system looks like: > > PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC > MSIIRQ > > A PCI MSI is always edge. No ifs, no buts. That's what it is, and nothing > else. Now, your MSI controller signals its output

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Here's what your system looks like: > > PCI-EP ---> MSI Controller --> INTC > MSIIRQ > > A PCI MSI is always edge. No ifs, no buts. That's what it is, and nothing > else. Now, your MSI controller signals its output

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 14:05, Mason wrote: > +/* > + * This should probably be module_platform_driver ? > + */ > +builtin_platform_driver(tango_pcie_driver); For the sake of completeness, ERROR: "pci_ecam_map_bus" [drivers/pci/host/pcie-tango.ko] undefined! ERROR: "pci_host_common_probe"

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 14:05, Mason wrote: > +/* > + * This should probably be module_platform_driver ? > + */ > +builtin_platform_driver(tango_pcie_driver); For the sake of completeness, ERROR: "pci_ecam_map_bus" [drivers/pci/host/pcie-tango.ko] undefined! ERROR: "pci_host_common_probe"

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 14:05, Mason wrote: > I think this version is ready for review. > It has all the required bits and pieces. > I still have a few questions, embedded as comments in the code. Superseded by [PATCH v3 0/2] Tango PCIe controller support The v0.2 series remains relevant for one aspect:

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 14:05, Mason wrote: > I think this version is ready for review. > It has all the required bits and pieces. > I still have a few questions, embedded as comments in the code. Superseded by [PATCH v3 0/2] Tango PCIe controller support The v0.2 series remains relevant for one aspect:

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/17 23:04, Mason wrote: > On 27/03/2017 23:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 27 2017 at 08:44:08 PM, Mason wrote: >> >>> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: > I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. > > My HW regs are

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/17 23:04, Mason wrote: > On 27/03/2017 23:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 27 2017 at 08:44:08 PM, Mason wrote: >> >>> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: > I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. > > My HW regs are

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 23:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27 2017 at 08:44:08 PM, Mason wrote: > >> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: >>> I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. My HW regs are 32b. How do I grab e.g. bits 96-127? All

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 23:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27 2017 at 08:44:08 PM, Mason wrote: > >> On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: >>> I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. My HW regs are 32b. How do I grab e.g. bits 96-127? All

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On Mon, Mar 27 2017 at 08:44:08 PM, Mason wrote: > On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: >> >>> I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. >>> >>> My HW regs are 32b. How do I grab e.g. bits 96-127? >>> All I can think of is >>> u32 val

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On Mon, Mar 27 2017 at 08:44:08 PM, Mason wrote: > On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: >> >>> I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. >>> >>> My HW regs are 32b. How do I grab e.g. bits 96-127? >>> All I can think of is >>> u32 val = ((u32

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: > >> I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. >> >> My HW regs are 32b. How do I grab e.g. bits 96-127? >> All I can think of is >> u32 val = ((u32 *)bitmap)[3]; >> >> Is this acceptable? > > No. > >> mrutland

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 19:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: > >> I have one remaining issue with bitmaps. >> >> My HW regs are 32b. How do I grab e.g. bits 96-127? >> All I can think of is >> u32 val = ((u32 *)bitmap)[3]; >> >> Is this acceptable? > > No. > >> mrutland

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: > On 24/03/2017 19:47, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 23/03/17 17:03, Mason wrote: >> >>> On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: > + writel_relaxed(status, pcie->msi_status); /* clear IRQs */ Why isn't this

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/17 16:53, Mason wrote: > On 24/03/2017 19:47, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 23/03/17 17:03, Mason wrote: >> >>> On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: > + writel_relaxed(status, pcie->msi_status); /* clear IRQs */ Why isn't this

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 24/03/2017 19:47, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 23/03/17 17:03, Mason wrote: > >> On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: >>> + writel_relaxed(status, pcie->msi_status); /* clear IRQs */ >>> >>> Why isn't this your irq_ack method instead of open-coding

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 24/03/2017 19:47, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 23/03/17 17:03, Mason wrote: > >> On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: >>> + writel_relaxed(status, pcie->msi_status); /* clear IRQs */ >>> >>> Why isn't this your irq_ack method instead of open-coding

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 16:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Mason wrote: > >> On 24/03/2017 19:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> You cannot directly use a pointer to a u32 in any of the bitmap >>> operations. You need to copy the value to an unsigned long, and >>> apply the bitmap op on that.

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 27/03/2017 16:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Mason wrote: > >> On 24/03/2017 19:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >>> You cannot directly use a pointer to a u32 in any of the bitmap >>> operations. You need to copy the value to an unsigned long, and >>> apply the bitmap op on that.

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Mason wrote: > On 24/03/2017 19:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > You cannot directly use a pointer to a u32 in any of the bitmap > > operations. You need to copy the value to an unsigned long, and > > apply the bitmap op on that. > > On my platform, find_first_zero_bit()

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Mason wrote: > On 24/03/2017 19:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > You cannot directly use a pointer to a u32 in any of the bitmap > > operations. You need to copy the value to an unsigned long, and > > apply the bitmap op on that. > > On my platform, find_first_zero_bit()

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 24/03/2017 19:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > You cannot directly use a pointer to a u32 in any of the bitmap > operations. You need to copy the value to an unsigned long, and > apply the bitmap op on that. On my platform, find_first_zero_bit() resolves to int _find_first_zero_bit_le(const void

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 24/03/2017 19:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > You cannot directly use a pointer to a u32 in any of the bitmap > operations. You need to copy the value to an unsigned long, and > apply the bitmap op on that. On my platform, find_first_zero_bit() resolves to int _find_first_zero_bit_le(const void

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/17 17:03, Mason wrote: > On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: >> >>> +#define MSI_COUNT 32 >> >> Is this something that is hardcoded? Unlikely to ever change? > > The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. > > IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/17 17:03, Mason wrote: > On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: >> >>> +#define MSI_COUNT 32 >> >> Is this something that is hardcoded? Unlikely to ever change? > > The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. > > IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/17 23:40, Mason wrote: > On 23/03/2017 18:03, Mason wrote: > >> The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. >> >> IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is that I support 256 in the driver, >> and only read the status for *enabled* MSIs. >> >> Pseudo-code: >> >> for every 32-bit blob in the

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/17 23:40, Mason wrote: > On 23/03/2017 18:03, Mason wrote: > >> The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. >> >> IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is that I support 256 in the driver, >> and only read the status for *enabled* MSIs. >> >> Pseudo-code: >> >> for every 32-bit blob in the

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 18:03, Mason wrote: > The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. > > IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is that I support 256 in the driver, > and only read the status for *enabled* MSIs. > > Pseudo-code: > > for every 32-bit blob in the enabled bitmap > if the value is non-zero

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 18:03, Mason wrote: > The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. > > IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is that I support 256 in the driver, > and only read the status for *enabled* MSIs. > > Pseudo-code: > > for every 32-bit blob in the enabled bitmap > if the value is non-zero

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: > >> +#define MSI_COUNT 32 > > Is this something that is hardcoded? Unlikely to ever change? The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is that I support 256 in the driver, and only

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/2017 15:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: > >> +#define MSI_COUNT 32 > > Is this something that is hardcoded? Unlikely to ever change? The host bridge actually supports 256 MSIs. IIUC, what you suggested on IRC is that I support 256 in the driver, and only

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: > I think this version is ready for review. > It has all the required bits and pieces. > I still have a few questions, embedded as comments in the code. > (Missing are ancillary changes to Kconfig, Makefile) May I suggest that if you think that a patch is ready for

Re: [RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

On 23/03/17 13:05, Mason wrote: > I think this version is ready for review. > It has all the required bits and pieces. > I still have a few questions, embedded as comments in the code. > (Missing are ancillary changes to Kconfig, Makefile) May I suggest that if you think that a patch is ready for

[RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

I think this version is ready for review. It has all the required bits and pieces. I still have a few questions, embedded as comments in the code. (Missing are ancillary changes to Kconfig, Makefile) --- drivers/pci/host/pcie-tango.c | 350 ++ 1 file

[RFC PATCH v0.2] PCI: Add support for tango PCIe host bridge

I think this version is ready for review. It has all the required bits and pieces. I still have a few questions, embedded as comments in the code. (Missing are ancillary changes to Kconfig, Makefile) --- drivers/pci/host/pcie-tango.c | 350 ++ 1 file