[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] of/pci: Unify pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges from Micro

To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/3] of/pci: Unify pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges from Microblaze and PowerPC
From: Andrew Murray <>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 09:01:42 +0100
Cc: "" <>, linuxppc-dev <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Liviu Dudau <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Rob Herring <>
In-reply-to: <1367721709.11982.37.camel@pasglop>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <1367721709.11982.37.camel@pasglop>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 03:41:49AM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 11:41 +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > The pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges function, used to parse the "ranges"
> > property of a PCI host device, is found in both Microblaze and PowerPC
> > architectures. These implementations are nearly identical. This patch
> > moves this common code to a common place.
> What's happening with this ? I'd like to avoid that patch for now
> as I'm doing some changes to pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges
> which are fairly urgent (I might even stick them in the current
> merge window) to deal with memory windows having separate offsets.

There were no objections to this latest revision until now and it is
currently sitting with Jason Cooper (mvebu-next/pcie). [1]

> There's also a few hacks in there that are really ppc specific...
> I think the right long term approach is to change the way powerpc
> (and microblaze ?) initializes PCI host bridges. Move it away from
> setup_arch() (which is a PITA anyway since it's way too early) to
> an early init call of some sort, and encapsulate the new struct
> pci_host_bridge.
> We can then directly configure the host bridge windows rather
> than having this "intermediary" set of resources in our pci_controller
> and in fact move most of the fields from pci_controller to
> pci_host_bridge to the point where the former can remain as a
> simple platform specific wrapper if needed.

This is a view that was also shared by Bjorn [2] when I attempted to
submit a patchset which moves struct pci_controller to asm-generic.

> So for new stuff (hint: DT based ARM PCI) or stuff that has to deal with
> a lot less archaic platforms (hint: Microblaze), I'd recommend going
> straight for that approach rather than perpetuating the PowerPC code
> which I'll try to deal with in the next few monthes.

The motativation for my patchsets were to give a way for ARM PCI host
bridge drivers to parse the DT ranges property, but this snow-balled into
unifying pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges.

My v8 patchset provides a of_pci_range_parser which is used directly by a
few ARM PCI DT host bridge drivers, this has been generally accepted and
tested. I don't see why this can't remain and so I'd really like to keep this

Grant, Benjamin would you be happy for me to resubmit this series which provides
the of_pci_range_parser which will be used by the separate implementations of
pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges in PowerPC/Microblaze?

Benjamin are you able to still use of_pci_range_parser in your
'Support per-aperture memory offset' patch?


Andrew Murray


> Cheers,
> Ben.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>