[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANCKTBv63b4bGepZbDp1wmFrOeddiDikoXbheMjHhbguAbR2sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:25:49 -0400
From: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@...adcom.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"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 v4 2/6] dt-bindings: PCI: Add bindings for Brcmstb
endpoint device voltage regulators
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:32 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:26:51PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:47 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > No great problem with having these in the controller node (assming it
> > > accurately describes the hardware) but I do think we ought to also be
> > > able to describe these per slot.
>
> > Can you explain what you think that would look like in the DT?
>
> I *think* that's just some properties on the nodes for the endpoints,
> note that the driver could just ignore them for now. Not sure where or
> if we document any extensions but child nodes are in section 4 of the
> v2.1 PCI bus binding.
Hi Mark,
I'm a little confused -- here is how I remember the chronology of the
"DT bindings" commit reviews, please correct me if I'm wrong:
o JimQ submitted a pullreq for using voltage regulators in the same
style as the existing "rockport" PCIe driver.
o After some deliberation, RobH preferred that the voltage regulators
should go into the PCIe subnode device's DT node.
o JimQ put the voltage regulators in the subnode device's DT node.
o MarkB didn't like the fact that the code did a global search for the
regulator since it could not provide the owning struct device* handle.
o RobH relented, and said that if it is just two specific and standard
voltage regulators, perhaps they can go in the parent DT node after
all.
o JimQ put the regulators back in the PCIe node.
o MarkB now wants the regulators to go back into the child node again?
Folks, please advise.
Regards,
Jim Quinlan
Broadcom STB
Powered by blists - more mailing lists