Re: [PATCH v8 2/7] PCI: dwc: Use devicetree 'ranges' property to get rid of cpu_addr_fixup() callback

[Frank Li]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 01:04:22PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 10:21:36AM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 10:42:37AM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 05:29:16PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 05:14:00PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 02:44:20PM -0500, Frank Li wrote:
> > > > > > parent_bus_addr in struct of_range can indicate address information just
> > > > > > ahead of PCIe controller. Most system's bus fabric use 1:1 map between
> > > > > > input and output address. but some hardware like i.MX8QXP doesn't use 1:1
> > > > > > map.
> > ...
>
> > 	I saw you have not picked all of these patches during you rework
> > pci git branches.
> >
> > 	I know you are busy, do you have chance to pick left patch for 6.14.
>
> This series had a mix of things: several patches related to
> .cpu_addr_fixup(), plus several unrelated ones for PHY mode and i.MX8Q
> support.  I think I picked up all the unrelated ones.
>
> .cpu_addr_fixup() is a generic problem that affects dwc (dra7xx, imx6,
> artpec6, intel-gw, visconti), cadence (cadence-plat), and now
> apparently microchip.
>
> I deferred these because I'm hoping we can come up with a more generic
> solution that's easier to apply across all these cases.  I don't
> really want to merge something that immediately needs to be reworked
> for other drivers.
>
> A few of the things I wonder about:
>
>   - dw_pcie_get_parent_addr() has no DWC dependencies, so it doesn't
>     make sense to me to have it be DWC-specific and copy and pasted
>     to other places that need something similar.
>
>   - It doesn't seem elegant to iterate through for_each_pci_range() in
>     devm_of_pci_get_host_bridge_resources(), then again in
>     dw_pcie_host_init() for io_bus_addr, then again in
>     dw_pcie_iatu_setup() for each window.  Maybe that's the best we
>     can do, but maybe there's a way to capture what we need on the
>     first time through.
>
>   - The connection between .cpu_addr_fixup() and use_parent_dt_ranges
>     is clear in the patches remove a .cpu_addr_fixup(), but not in the
>     DWC patches on the other end.
>
>   - Ideally, "use_parent_dt_ranges" would be the default and we
>     wouldn't have a flag to indicate that, and drivers would have to
>     opt out instead of opt in.  They basically already do that by
>     implementing .cpu_addr_fixup(), so maybe we can take advantage of
>     that fact.

Okay, thanks. let me think how to improve it after 6.14.

Frank
>
> Bjorn