[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210330153023.GE4976@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:30:23 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, james.quinlan@...adcom.com,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-bindings: PCI: Add bindings for Brcmstb EP
voltage regulators
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:08:16AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:18:59PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > + pcie-ep@0,0 {
> > + reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
> > + compatible = "pci14e4,1688";
> > + vpcie12v-supply: <&vreg12>;
> For other cases, these properties are in the host bridge node. If these
> are standard PCI rails, then I think that's where they belong unless we
> define slot nodes.
For a soldered down part I'd expect we'd want both (if the host even
cares) - for anything except a supply that I/O or something else shared
is referenced off there's no great reason why it has to be physically
the same supply going to every device on the bus so each device should
be able to specify separately.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists