RE: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06

[Gabriele Paoloni]

Hi Arnd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 10 November 2016 09:12
> To: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Yuanzhichang; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx; Gabriele Paoloni; minyard@xxxxxxx; linux-
> pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; John Garry;
> will.deacon@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xuwei (O); Linuxarm;
> zourongrong@xxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; kantyzc@xxxxxxx; linux-
> serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx; olof@xxxxxxxxx;
> liviu.dudau@xxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; zhichang.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on
> Hip06
> 
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:40:26 PM CET zhichang.yuan wrote:
> > On 2016/11/10 5:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 12:10:43 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni
> wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:47:09 AM CET zhichang.yuan wrote:
> > >>>> +       /*
> > >>>> +        * The first PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is reserved specifically for
> > >>> indirectIO.
> > >>>> +        * It will separate indirectIO range from pci host
> bridge to
> > >>>> +        * avoid the possible PIO conflict.
> > >>>> +        * Set the indirectIO range directly here.
> > >>>> +        */
> > >>>> +       lpcdev->io_ops.start = 0;
> > >>>> +       lpcdev->io_ops.end = PCIBIOS_MIN_IO - 1;
> > >>>> +       lpcdev->io_ops.devpara = lpcdev;
> > >>>> +       lpcdev->io_ops.pfin = hisilpc_comm_in;
> > >>>> +       lpcdev->io_ops.pfout = hisilpc_comm_out;
> > >>>> +       lpcdev->io_ops.pfins = hisilpc_comm_ins;
> > >>>> +       lpcdev->io_ops.pfouts = hisilpc_comm_outs;
> > >>>
> > >>> I have to look at patch 2 in more detail again, after missing a
> few
> > >>> review
> > >>> rounds. I'm still a bit skeptical about hardcoding a logical I/O
> port
> > >>> range here, and would hope that we can just go through the same
> > >>> assignment of logical port ranges that we have for PCI buses,
> > >>> decoupling
> > >>> the bus addresses from the linux-internal ones.
> > >>
> > >> The point here is that we want to avoid any conflict/overlap
> between
> > >> the LPC I/O space and the PCI I/O space. With the assignment above
> > >> we make sure that LPC never interfere with PCI I/O space.
> > >
> > > But we already abstract the PCI I/O space using dynamic
> registration.
> > > There is no need to hardcode the logical address for ISA, though
> > > I think we can hardcode the bus address to start at zero here.
> >
> > Do you means that we can pick up the maximal I/O address from all
> children's
> > device resources??
> 
> The driver should not look at the resources of its children, just
> register a range of addresses dynamically, as I suggested in an
> earlier review.

Where should we get the range from? For LPC we know that it is going
Work on anything that is not used by PCI I/O space, and this is 
why we use [0, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO]

> 
> 
> Your current version has
> 
>         if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout)                             \
>                 arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\
>                        addr, value, sizeof(type));             \
> 
> Instead, just subtract the start of the range from the logical
> port number to transform it back into a bus-local port number:

These accessors do not operate on IO tokens:

If (arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || arm64_extio_ops->end < addr)
addr is not going to be an I/O token; in fact patch 2/3 imposes that
the I/O tokens will start at PCIBIOS_MIN_IO. So from 0 to PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
we have free physical addresses that the accessors can operate on.

Thanks

Gab 

> 
>         if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout)                             \
>                 arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\
>                        addr - arm64_extio_ops->start, value,
> sizeof(type)); \
> 
> We know that the ISA/LPC bus can only have up to 65536 ports,
> so you can register all of those, or possibly limit it further to
> 1024 or 4096 ports, whichever matches the bus implementation.
> 
> 	Arnd