Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] PCI: sg2042: Add Sophgo SG2042 PCIe driver

[Chen Wang]

On 2025/1/23 1:34, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:

[......]
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * SG2042 PCIe controller supports two ways to report MSI:
> > > > + *
> > > > + * - Method A, the PCIe controller implements an MSI interrupt controller
> > > > + *   inside, and connect to PLIC upward through one interrupt line.
> > > > + *   Provides memory-mapped MSI address, and by programming the upper 32
> > > > + *   bits of the address to zero, it can be compatible with old PCIe devices
> > > > + *   that only support 32-bit MSI address.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * - Method B, the PCIe controller connects to PLIC upward through an
> > > > + *   independent MSI controller "sophgo,sg2042-msi" on the SOC. The MSI
> > > > + *   controller provides multiple(up to 32) interrupt sources to PLIC.
> > > > + *   Compared with the first method, the advantage is that the interrupt
> > > > + *   source is expanded, but because for SG2042, the MSI address provided by
> > > > + *   the MSI controller is fixed and only supports 64-bit address(> 2^32),
> > > > + *   it is not compatible with old PCIe devices that only support 32-bit MSI
> > > > + *   address.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Method A & B can be configured in DTS, default is Method B.
> > > How to configure them? I can only see "sophgo,sg2042-msi" in the binding.
> >
> > The value of the msi-parent attribute is used in dts to distinguish them,
> > for example:
> >
> > ```dts
> >
> > msi: msi-controller@7030010300 {
> >      ......
> > };
> >
> > pcie_rc0: pcie@7060000000 {
> >      msi-parent = <&msi>;
> > };
> >
> > pcie_rc1: pcie@7062000000 {
> >      ......
> >      msi-parent = <&msi_pcie>;
> >      msi_pcie: interrupt-controller {
> >          ......
> >      };
> > };
> >
> > ```
> >
> > Which means:
> >
> > pcie_rc0 uses Method B
> >
> > pcie_rc1 uses Method A.
> Ok. you mentioned 'default method' which is not accurate since the choice
> obviously depends on DT. Maybe you should say, 'commonly used method'? But both
> the binding and dts patches make use of in-built MSI controller only (method A).

"commonly used method" looks ok to me.

Binding example only shows the case for Method A, due to I think the 
writing of case for Method A  covers the writing of case for Method B.

DTS patches use both Method A and B. You can see patch 4 of this 
patchset, pcie_rc1 uses Method A, pcie_rc0 & pcie_rc2 use Method B.

> In general, for MSI implementations inside the PCIe IP, we don't usually add a
> dedicated devicetree node since the IP is the same. But in your reply to the my
> question on the bindings patch, you said it is a separate IP. I'm confused now.

I learned the writing of DTS from "brcm,iproc-pcie", see 
arch/arm/boot/dts/broadcom/bcm-cygnus.dtsi for example. Wouldn't it be 
clearer to embed an msi controller in topo?

And regarding what you said, "we don't usually add a dedicated 
devicetree node", do you have any example I can refer to?

Thanks,

Chen

[......]