From: Alex Elder <elder@riscstar.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, robh@kernel.org, saravanak@kernel.org,
herve.codina@bootlin.com, daniel@riscstar.com,
mohd.anwar@oss.qualcomm.com, lorenzo.bianconi@oss.qualcomm.com,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] PCI: of: introduce of_pci_verify_node()
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:23:15 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2d7637a-a99b-435a-b625-0f9d8e94111a@riscstar.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260909163727.GA230382@bhelgaas>
On 9/9/26 11:37 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 04:34:58PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
>> Commit 407d1a51921e9 ("PCI: Create device tree node for bridge") linked
>> the PCI enumeration process together with devicetree, creating a devicetree
>> node for discovered PCI bridges. Its successor commit ae9813db1dc5a ("PCI:
>> Add quirks to generate device tree node for Xilinx Alveo U50") shows how
>> to use a PCI final fixup quirk to also create a devicetree node for a
>> non-bridge PCI device. These changes allowed devicetree overlays to
>> describe components downstream of a PCI device, by providing a place to
>> attach the overlay.
>>
>> Note that the dynamic devicetree node is only created if the device didn't
>> already have an assigned node.
>>
>> Later, commit aa7b4bbcb3a1d ("arm64: dts: qcom: qcs6490-rb3gen2: Add
>> TC9563 PCIe switch node") *pre-defined* devicetree nodes to represent the
>> PCI device nodes that would (also) be discovered via the PCI enumeration
>> process. The devicetree node in this case is created with the content
>> from the DTS file. So when a (host) bridge is done being initialized
>> during PCI enumeration, no node is dynamically created (the commits
>> mentioned above do not apply).
>>
>> Ideally, any pre-defined PCI devicetree node would contain exactly the
>> same information as whatever the dynamic creation process would produce
>> (though it could include more).
>>
>> However that is not the case for the pre-defined Qualcomm RB3gen2 nodes.
>> And in particular, the endpoint (function) nodes include this property:
>>
>> device_type = "pci";
>>
>> This is simply wrong; that property is meant only for bridge nodes.
>>
>> Rob Herring requested that a runtime check to be added to spot this
>> specific error, only for non-bridge PCI devices. Herve Codina further
>> suggested we ensure that bridge PCI devices *do* define the device_type
>> property, with value "pci". We also accept "pciex" as the value of the
>> device_type property for bridges.
>
> IIUC this patch basically adds a warning for ill-formed DTs but
> doesn't otherwise change any behavior. Obviously a developer could
> fix the DT, but what would a user do in response to the warning?
You are correct. It really is meant for developers, not users,
and no user should ever see these warnings.
> Is there something that doesn't work when this warning is emitted, and
> fixing the DT would make it work? If so, is there any hint that could
> be included in the warning? E.g., "DT device_type is missing; can't
> support X"?
I discovered this the hard way... I'm implementing a PCI endpoint
bus, and didn't realize that endpoints should not have the device_type
property (= "pci") specified. These endpoints *did* specify that
property, and as a result, address mapping for the pci-ep-bus didn't
work.
To be honest I don't know the consequences of this property being
missing for a PCI bridge device. I do know the problem I encountered
if it's specified with value "pci" for an endpoint node. I have no
objection to making the message more informative, but it might not
really cover all the things that won't work as a result.
The DTS files have been fixed:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260902214321.1721477-1-elder@riscstar.com/
(And as a result, a few verbs above should be made past tense.)
I created this patch simply in response to Rob's suggestion, and
updated it based on Herve's.
I could update the description to look more like what you got
Gemini to produce. That talks about some context that I did
not provide, but it also lacks some of the other context (like
when/why PCI devices even have devicetree nodes, and how I
discovered it).
> The commit log doesn't actually say directly what the patch does. I
> asked gemini to work on it, and it produced this, which is
> straightforward but omits a lot of detail you might want:
>
> PCI: of: Verify "device_type" property for PCI device nodes
>
> According to the Open Firmware PCI Bus Supplement and Devicetree
> Specification, the `device_type` property is reserved strictly for
> PCI bridge nodes (with value "pci" or "pciex"). Non-bridge PCI
> endpoint nodes must not include a `device_type` property.
>
> Pre-defined Device Tree nodes representing PCI devices sometimes
> violate this requirement—such as endpoint nodes incorrectly
> specifying `device_type = "pci"`, or bridge nodes omitting
> `device_type` altogether.
>
> Introduce of_pci_verify_node() to sanity-check pre-defined Device
> Tree nodes assigned to PCI devices as they are registered in
> pci_bus_add_device():
>
> - Warn if a PCI bridge node lacks a "pci" or "pciex" `device_type`
> property.
>
> - Warn if a non-bridge PCI endpoint node contains a `device_type`
> property.
>
> I'd like to get Rob's Reviewed-by since I'm not really a DT expert.
I agree, I think we need that since it was his suggestion.
I don't mind spinning version 6 to update the description
and possible the warning message. I'll leave that up to you
(or Rob) to request that before it gets accepted.
Thanks.
-Alex
>
>> Reviewed-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@riscstar.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/bus.c | 1 +
>> drivers/pci/of.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/pci/pci.h | 3 +++
>> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/bus.c b/drivers/pci/bus.c
>> index 655ed53436d3e..679afbc6d3109 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/bus.c
>> @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ void pci_bus_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> * are not assigned yet for some devices.
>> */
>> pcibios_bus_add_device(dev);
>> + of_pci_verify_node(dev);
>> pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_final, dev);
>> if (pci_is_bridge(dev))
>> of_pci_make_dev_node(dev);
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/of.c b/drivers/pci/of.c
>> index a51dff91b196d..5a040ed836744 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/of.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/of.c
>> @@ -1085,3 +1085,35 @@ int of_pci_get_equalization_presets(struct device *dev,
>> return 0;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_equalization_presets);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * of_pci_verify_node - Sanity check some PCI device node properties
>> + * @pdev: The PCI device whose device node is checked
>> + *
>> + * PCI enumeration authoritatively discovers what we need to know about
>> + * a PCI device. A devicetree-based platform will represent a PCI root
>> + * bridge with a node, but otherwise devicetree doesn't typically include
>> + * many PCI nodes. Where such nodes do exist, experience has shown that
>> + * the "device_type" property is sometimes wrong, so warn about that.
>> + */
>> +void of_pci_verify_node(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct device_node *np = pci_device_to_OF_node(pdev);
>> + bool device_is_bridge;
>> + bool device_type_pci;
>> +
>> + /* Nothing to check if there's no pre-existing devicetree node */
>> + if (!np)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + device_is_bridge = pci_is_bridge(pdev);
>> + device_type_pci = of_node_is_type(np, "pci") ||
>> + of_node_is_type(np, "pciex");
>> +
>> + /* Bridges should have device type "pci"; endpoints should not */
>> + if (device_is_bridge == device_type_pci)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "PCI %s have \"pci\" device_type property\n",
>> + device_is_bridge ? "bridge should" : "endpoint should not");
>> +}
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.h b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> index ba3c3fddddc23..2e33d3bd4b0ba 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.h
>> @@ -1253,6 +1253,7 @@ bool of_pci_supply_present(struct device_node *np);
>> int of_pci_get_equalization_presets(struct device *dev,
>> struct pci_eq_presets *presets,
>> int num_lanes);
>> +void of_pci_verify_node(struct pci_dev *pdev);
>> #else
>> static inline int
>> of_get_pci_domain_nr(struct device_node *node)
>> @@ -1308,6 +1309,8 @@ static inline int of_pci_get_equalization_presets(struct device *dev,
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +
>> +static inline void of_pci_verify_node(struct pci_dev *pdev) { }
>> #endif /* CONFIG_OF */
>>
>> struct of_changeset;
>> --
>> 2.53.0
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-09 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-08 21:34 [PATCH v5 0/4] PCI: of: warn on bogus device_type property Alex Elder
2026-09-08 21:34 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] PCI: of: avoid allocations in of_pci_prop_compatible() Alex Elder
2026-09-08 21:34 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] PCI: of: drop the reg_num argument to of_pci_set_address() Alex Elder
2026-09-08 21:34 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] PCI: of: don't zero flags in of_pci_get_addr_flags() Alex Elder
2026-09-08 21:34 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] PCI: of: introduce of_pci_verify_node() Alex Elder
2026-09-09 16:37 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-09-09 17:23 ` Alex Elder [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c2d7637a-a99b-435a-b625-0f9d8e94111a@riscstar.com \
--to=elder@riscstar.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=daniel@riscstar.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.bianconi@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=mohd.anwar@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®