On 09/19/2018 11:41 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:34 PM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > I already pointed out in the previous email. In > arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts, the 2nd PCI controller has two swap_case > devices and the 3rd controller has one.
By "second" you mean pci1: or pci2: ? Because pci1: is second , after pci0 . It'd really help if you were clearer in what you refer to. > In swap_case.c, U_BOOT_PCI_DEVICE() is there which is also a clear > sign that the driver supports dynamic binding. Of course, the driver > supports "compatible" too as you noticed. Are you talking about sandbox,dev-info DT property here ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot