Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: enable RapidIO menu in Kconfig

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 01:59:27PM -0400, Alex Bounine wrote:
> On 2018-07-31 11:52 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 08:54:14AM -0400, Alex Bounine wrote:
> >>On 2018-07-31 04:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 06:50:34PM -0400, Alexei Colin wrote:
> >>>>Platforms with a PCI bus will be offered the RapidIO menu since they may
> >>>>be want support for a RapidIO PCI device. Platforms without a PCI bus
> >>>>that might include a RapidIO IP block will need to "select HAS_RAPIDIO"
> >>>>in the platform-/machine-specific "config ARCH_*" Kconfig entry.
> >>>>
> >>>>Tested that kernel builds for arm64 with RapidIO subsystem and
> >>>>switch drivers enabled, also that the modules load successfully
> >>>>on a custom Aarch64 Qemu model.
> >>>>
> >>>>Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>Cc: John Paul Walters <jwalters@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Alexei Colin <acolin@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>---
> >>>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 ++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>>Thanks, this looks much cleaner than before:
> >>>
> >>>Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>The only thing I'm not sure about is why we don't just select HAS_RAPIDIO
> >>>unconditionally in the arm64 Kconfig. Does selecting only that option
> >>>actually pull in new code to the build?
> >>>
> >>HAS_RAPIDIO option is intended for SOCs that have built in SRIO controllers,
> >>like TI KeyStoneII or FPGAs. Because RapidIO subsystem core is required
> >>during RapidIO port driver initialization, having separate option allows us
> >>to control available build options for RapidIO core and port driver (bool
> >>vs. tristate) and disable module option if port driver is configured as
> >>built-in.
> >
> >Your explanation doesn't make much sense to me.
> >
> >RAPIDIO is the bus-level support, right?  So drivers that depend on
> >the bus-level support should depend on RAPIDIO, and so, if RAPIDIO
> >is configured as a module, they will also be allowed to be disabled
> >or a module, but not built-in if tristate.  If it is boolean, and
> >causes the driver to be built-in to the kernel, then you need to use
> >"RAPIDIO=y" so that it's dependency is only satisfied when the core
> >is built-in.
> >
> 
> RapidIO host controllers (on local bus like SoC internal or PCIe) are
> serviced by MPORT device drivers that are subsystem specific and communicate
> with RapidIO core using set of callbacks. Depending on HW architecture these
> drivers may be defined as built-in or module.

Why does hardware architecture define whether something has to be built
in or can be modular?

It is the case today that (eg) on-SoC hardware _can_ be built as a module
if desired - just because it's on the SoC does not mean it has to be
built in to the kernel.  Why is RapidIO any different?

> Built-in driver will require presence of the RapidIO core during its
> initialization time and therefore we have to set CONFIG_RAPIDIO=y.
> Also we have PCIe based host controllers and their drivers are OK to be
> built as module like for any other PCI device.
> 
> Based on requirements and available resources/HW_configuration the platform
> can have on-chip host controller enabled or disabled (or simply not
> implemented in case of FPGA). This leads us to combination of on-chip and
> PCIe host controllers. For example, if PCIe bus is required for other
> devices, we may have to use PCIe-to_SRIO bridge because all available
> on-chip SerDes lines are assigned to PCIe.
> 
> If we use CONFIG_RAPIDIO as a single indicator of possible configuration, we
> can make visible config menu entry for on-chip controller that is not
> available on given platform due to HW setup. For example on KeystoneII or
> MPC85xx/86xx. The option HAS_RAPIDIO tells us that given platform really
> uses on-chip RapidIO host controller. This is why FSL_RIO depends on
> HAS_RAPIDIO.
> 
> Also having PCIe enabled in any form is not a good option to control support
> for on-chip controller.

I'm not saying that - can you please read my suggestion below and
respond to that.  I'm giving you technical feedback, but it seems
all I'm getting back is "this is how we're doing it" rather than a
constructive discussion.

For example, can you point out why my idea I present below would not
work?

> For peripheral devices attached to the RapidIO fabric such dependency on
> local mport implementation does not exist and therefore they all can be
> treated as tristate.
> 
> >HAS_RAPIDIO gives the impression that it defines whether or not
> >the rapidio core code is allowable or not - it doesn't suggest that
> >it has anything to do with drivers. However, reading the PowerPC
> >Kconfig files, it seems to be used that way.  That's confusing, and
> >ought to be fixed.  From what I can tell, it's only used for FSL_RIO,
> >so I suggest that gets converted to:
> >
> >config HAS_RAPIDIO
> >	bool PCI
> >
> >config RAPIDIO
> >	tristate "RapidIO support"
> >	depends on HAS_RAPIDIO
> >
> >config HAS_FSL_RIO
> >	bool
> >	select HAS_RAPIDIO
> >
> >config FSL_RIO
> >	bool "Freescale Embedded SRIO Controller support"
> >	depends on RAPIDIO = y && HAS_FSL_RIO
> >
> >This frees up HAS_RAPIDIO to operate as one would expect - to define
> >whether or not RAPIDIO should be offered.  This also allows:
> >
> >config ARM
> >	select HAS_RAPIDIO if PCI
> >
> >to be added to arch/arm/Kconfig if appropriate.  However, I'm not yet
> >convinced that _just because_ we have PCI does not mean that RAPIDIO
> >should be offered.  I stated a series of questions about that last
> >Tuesday in response to an individual patch adding rapidio to arch/arm,
> >and that email seems to have been ignored - at least as far as the
> >questions go.
> >
> >Please ensure that you respond to your reviewers questions, otherwise
> >you will start receiving plain NAKs to your patches instead (since
> >it becomes a waste of time for reviewers to put any further effort
> >in to explain why they don't like the patch.)
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 13.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 13Mbps down 490kbps up