That's fine with me, thank you.

Only minor nit.
Is necessary to shadow HWPARAMS? Shadowing the HW registry is always a pain and a source of confusion and errors. IMHO it should only be used as a last resort...

Thanks

And why didn't you leave it enabled? IMHO all HWACCEL blocks look the same, so the risk of a possible error is minimal.

How is '#ifdef HWACCEL3' compatible with the generic kernel and why do we need it at all?

It solved my problem and it boots without any problems on all my arm64 boards. Thanks.

ping

In D34031#777724, @mindal_semihalf.com wrote:

Hmm, I just did a simple test by adding a call to kdb_backtrace to ofw_bus_default_get_node and removing ofw_pci.c from the build.
Is this the scenario where you expected ENXIO to be returned from ofw_bus_get_node?
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly here.

In D34031#777672, @mindal_semihalf.com wrote:

This only applies to buses derived from simple/ofwbus, not to others (e.g. pci). For other device objects, the ofw_bus_get_node() function returns ENXIO (which may be a valid node ID). However, calling a class function on an object that is not derived from the given class should be considered an error.

Do you mean the case when kobj_lookup_method fails to find anything and we end up in kobj_error_method?
I don't think this is a possible scenario.
The default implementation - ofw_bus_default_get_node returns -1.
Note that BUS_GET_PROPERTY being resolved to simplebus_get_property implies that the bus was derived from ofw.
Because of that the OFW_BUS_GET_NODE will always have an implementation, possibly the default one.

Yes, I mean we end up in kobj_error_method. And that's a very real scenario. In newbus, the default method is only applied for the given class and its subclasses. *Not for all classes*

Unfortunately, it looks bad.
Up until SDHCI v3.0, SDMA is strictly 32-bit, only ADMA mode (which we don't support yet, it is optionally 64-bit). As you can see at https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/dev/sdhci/sdhci.c#n1977, the driver ends up writing only the 32-part of buffer physical address to the DMA base register.

Just a very minor notice . Wouldn't it be better to name the VM memory attribute by function, not by type? Different architectures may have different attribute mapping requirements for the PCI configuration space, and something like a global VM_MEMATTR_PCI_CONFIG (may be aliased to platform specific VM_MEMATTR_DEVICE_NP on arm64) gives us a much better chance of having cross-platform drivers without #ifdef hell.

Ahh right, thanks.

There is also a tegra pcie driver that is common to arm and arm64 , so we should define VM_MEMATTR_DEVICE_NP for arm as well. But I'm not sure if we have the rest of the necessary infrastructure implemented on arm.

In D34031#776866, @mindal_semihalf.com wrote:

That's exactly how I initially did this, take a look at https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33457?id=100979#inline-208849.

I see and I think that original implementation was more correct.

I don't think that's right. We can't expect that all indirect descendants of simplebus were instantiated by simplebus. Typically all enumerable buses (e.g. pci or multifunction devices represented by single FDT node) are not derived from simplebus. You cannot use ofw_bus_get_node(child) on those.
IMHO we can have a single generic implementation of <foo>_get_property for a given bus , but it should be explicitly defined in the device_methods structure for all appropriate drives.

Yes, I've applied all the patches. The problem is that the HS SD card (i.e. without debugging) also doesn't work and I don't know why.

Due to problems with the D32706 I can't verify this on Honeycomb, plus I've never been able to have a working HW tuning. The current state is that this whole series of patches leaves Honeycomb with a non-functioning SD and eMMC. I currently have almost no free time to hack this problem, so everything is taking forever, sorry :(

First of all, I apologize for being too harsh.
The problem is that this patch breaks both SD and eMMC on Honeycomb (LX2160). the eMMC is not detected at all, abd HSSSD card fires out with tons of CRC errors.
Unfortunately however this patch break SD and eMMC on Honezcomb (LX2160).
After further digging, I thing that fsl_sdhc_fdt_set_clock() is broken from day zero.
fsl_sdhc_fdt_set_clock() was supposed to be paired with fsl_sdhc_fdt_get_clock() to perform a conversion of differences between SDHCI and eSDHCl clock register format.

Unfortunately this does not work at all and should be reverted.
eSDHC implements two versions of the clock divider, which are selected by the ESDHCCTL[CRS] bit.

LGTM

Tried and tested - it fixes my previous problem, thanks.

You know I'm "creative", especially when it comes to booting SBC.
The failing sequence is:

Unfortunately thiss broke tftp kernel loading.
The tftp_open() function will prefetch the first block and leave tftpfile->currblock set to 1, so the first block is never loaded into the cache.
The trivial fix is to reset it back to 0, it works for me but I'm not sure if that's the right solution.

Sorry for the strong language, please don't take it the wrong way.
clknode_init_freq_value() - this function is completely unnecessary, and only complicates an already complicated interface. Moreover, it is only used here as papering over a real problem in sysctl dump code. Ii really don't want that.

LGTM

ofw_bus_node_is_compatible(OF_finddevice("/"), "fsl,lx2160a")

does the trick (assuming that OF_finddevice("/") cannot fail)...

This breaks mmc on FDT based Honeycomb with following log:

I see. But why you cannot use something like this (tested only on Honecomb) https://github.com/strejda/freebsd/commit/40eb737b2e9ca485daef8bf2effa96b053f847f9 ? Advantage of this code is that it can stay unchanged after thermal-zone driver was introduced..
I see. But why can't you use something like this (tested only on Honeycomb) https://github.com/strejda/freebsd/commit/40eb737b2e9ca485daef8bf2effa96b053f847f9 ? The advantage of this code is that it can remain unchanged after the thermal zone driver has been introduced.

LGTM

Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about a different SoC.
For me, the only relevant source on the number of sensors is TRM, not the DT files.
The current code is ready for variable number of sensors, just fill a new struct tsensor array according to TRM and use that instead of default_sensors. Unfortunately, due to a strange habit in QorIQ DT we have to use compatible string of the root node itself instead of the compatible string of the thermal controller :( . See comment on (original) line 311.
Where do you see the problem?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this.
The temperature sensor is a different entity from a temperature zone which we can not mix. A given SOC always has a fixed number of temperature sensors but the number of temperature zones is determined by the design of the board/laptop/equipment. In addition, one temperature zone can be controlled by multiple temperature sensors (where each can have a different weight) and can control multiple cooling devices. A sensor may or may not be a member of a thermal zone and yet its value may be useful to the user (and thus accessible, for example, by sysctl(8)).
I have an initial implementation (almost ready to commit) of a temperature sensor framework and a very early implementation of thermal zones - both necessary for temperature controlled cooling. The problem is that I don't have the free time to finish them right now... So take what you want, or give me time over Christmas, I'll try to finish it to a committable state.

Thanks

on ARM (and on other intrng enabled systems) the interrupt resource does not represent the real interrupt - it is an arbitrarily assigned index that points to opaque interrupt mapping data collected by ofwbus - so multiple different interrupt resources can identify one actual interrupt or similar.

I think adding more irregularity to an already ill-defined code behavior is not a good idea. Moreover, I think this is an obvious driver error - requesting a single segment for a buffer that can bounce is clear nonsense in which case the driver should allocate the buffer using bus_dmamem_alloc() or possibly pass the buffer aligned. Copying multiple pages back and forth doesn't sound like an optimal solution.

This looks perfect to me, many thanks.

In final commit, the original arm_kernel_boothdr.awk should be deleted. Otherwise look good to me

Otherwise looks good for me.,

Tested on MACCHIATObin and HoneyComb LX2.

Please, ignore my previous comment - I overlooked register name :(

Tested on MACCHIATObin and HoneyComb LX2 .

imho, only fan53555. And thanks for help.

If you can, do it yourself. My build environment is currently broken. I'm recovering from ZFS metadata corruption, plus ipfw (libalias) wants to divide by zero from time to time... :( Thanks.

We should switch to pmic/fan53555 driver which already supports it (along with other variants). I seem to have forgotten to do that. Can you test this, please?

I need day or two to test this on my boards, but it looks OK for me.

On correctly implemented systems, reading from an unimplemented device register will cause an exception (external asynchronous interrupt on arm64), on real systems it will return an arbitrary value.
Therefore, pci_dw_detect_atu_unroll() should only be called for modern core versions (which have the DW_IATU_VIEWPORT register implemented) - so we should check the core version first.
Otherwise looks good to me.

For clarification, I meant this:

However, the ELF definition also requires that the address of the undefined weak thread local symbol be translated to NULL. Additionally, I have seen code that relied on this. Unfortunately, because of aarch64's "unique" way of accessing TLS variables, I haven't found a way to implement this.
Wouldn't it be better to narrow down the cases where a message is printed, rather than allowing invalid and unreported behavior?

nathan confirmed that ofw_bus_gen_get_node() should return -1 for non-ofw based device. i will commit fix asap (tomorrow).

I'm working on this - but situation about return value becomes more clear now. Please see comment in ofw_if.m https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/dev/ofw/ofw_bus_if.m#n148 and andrew just pointed me to this commit https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?h=0d8d9edaaaca1

thx

otherwise LGTM

In D30761#692611, @mindal_semihalf.com wrote:

In D30761#692573, @mmel wrote:

First, please don't take this as hating - I just think we've opened a Pandora's box full of mistakes... I've gotten caught up in the 0/-1 ambiguity for invalid phandle more than once, so I think it would be good to get that sorted out.

No worries, I agree that we should use only a single value to indicate a "NULL"/incorrent phandle.
Since it's a uint32_t I'd personally go with "0".

I understand but 0 is (probably only theoretically) valid pnode.

In D30761#692212, @mindal_semihalf.com wrote:

In D30761#692182, @mmel wrote:

Imho, this is just papering over real problem, it is obvious that ofw_bus_lookup_imap() should not be called for a device/bus that is not based on ofw.

ofw_bus_lookup_imap is called regardless of the ofw_pci patch.
pci_dw is a class 1 driver, which inherits devmethods from ofw_pcib. The latter implements pcib_route_interrupt using ofw_pcib_route_interrupt.
In other words ofw_bus_lookup_imap is called because the RC is ofw based.

Thats true, but something else is wrong in pcib_route_interrupt call-down hiearchy. This need slightly more time and deeper investigation...

I'm still trying to fully understand the real problem, but in the meantime I have a few questions:

• Why ofw_bus_gen_get_node() returns a different value for the errored case than ofw_bus_default_get_node() ?

Frankly I have no idea. I haven't written any of those. I guess we wanted to differentiate between a case where there is no ofw support on the bus(-1) vs. where no node was found for a given device. (0)
Since phandle_t is an uint32_t type, assigning -1 to it is a bad idea imho.

After looking deeper into the dev/ofw source code, I noticed that the code only uses compare to -1 for error detection. So, I think ofw_bus_gen_get_node() is bad and should return -1 in case of error.

Well as mentioned above we should definitely return just one error value.
The problem is that changing the return value of ofw_bus_gen_get_node() could potentially break something else that relies on it returning 0.

That's true, but we have time to next release to fix all protentional problems.

First, please don't take this as hating - I just think we've opened a Pandora's box full of mistakes... I've gotten caught up in the 0/-1 ambiguity for invalid phandle more than once, so I think it would be good to get that sorted out.

In D30761#692212, @mindal_semihalf.com wrote:

In D30761#692182, @mmel wrote:

Imho, this is just papering over real problem, it is obvious that ofw_bus_lookup_imap() should not be called for a device/bus that is not based on ofw.

ofw_bus_lookup_imap is called regardless of the ofw_pci patch.
pci_dw is a class 1 driver, which inherits devmethods from ofw_pcib. The latter implements pcib_route_interrupt using ofw_pcib_route_interrupt.
In other words ofw_bus_lookup_imap is called because the RC is ofw based.

Thats true, but something else is wrong in pcib_route_interrupt call-down hiearchy. This need slightly more time and deeper investigation...

Imho, this is just papering over real problem, it is obvious that ofw_bus_lookup_imap() should not be called for a device/bus that is not based on ofw.
I'm still trying to fully understand the real problem, but in the meantime I have a few questions:

• Why ofw_bus_gen_get_node() returns a different value for the errored case than ofw_bus_default_get_node() ?
• For all other buses (i2c, spi...) we have ofw and "native" variants -> why is PCI is special?
• Why do we want to fake an enumerated pci bus (i.e. not ofw-based) as ofw-based?
• Why do you think passing get_devinfo() to the parent is the correct default method, and why can it be used with all existing PCIE controllers?
• How can ofw_pci work in case of more complex pcie topology (for example if the system has PCIe switches)?