| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 15:27:00 +0530
From: Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@...eaurora.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
mgautam@...eaurora.org, dianders@...omium.org, mka@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add PCIe and PHY related
nodes
On 2021-05-08 01:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Prasad Malisetty (2021-05-07 03:17:27)
>> Add PCIe controller and PHY nodes for sc7280 SOC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 138
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 138 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> index 2cc4785..a9f25fc1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>> #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-aoss-qmp.h>
>> #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h>
>> #include <dt-bindings/soc/qcom,rpmh-rsc.h>
>> +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
>>
>> / {
>> interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>> @@ -316,6 +317,118 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
> [...]
>> +
>> + pcie1_phy: phy@...e000 {
>> + compatible =
>> "qcom,sm8250-qmp-gen3x2-pcie-phy";
>> + reg = <0 0x01c0e000 0 0x1c0>;
>> + #address-cells = <2>;
>> + #size-cells = <2>;
>> + ranges;
>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_1_AUX_CLK>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_PCIE_1_CFG_AHB_CLK>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_PCIE_CLKREF_EN>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_PCIE1_PHY_RCHNG_CLK>;
>> + clock-names = "aux", "cfg_ahb", "ref",
>> "refgen";
>> +
>> + resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_1_PHY_BCR>;
>> + reset-names = "phy";
>> +
>> + assigned-clocks = <&gcc
>> GCC_PCIE1_PHY_RCHNG_CLK>;
>> + assigned-clock-rates = <100000000>;
>> +
>> + status = "disabled";
>
> I think the style is to put status disabled close to the compatible?
Generally I have added status disabled in end as like many nodes. just
curious to ask is there any specific reason to put close to compatible.
>
>> +
>> + pcie1_lane: lanes@...e200 {
>> + reg = <0 0x1c0e200 0 0x170>, /* tx0 */
>
> Please pad reg addresses to 8 characters.
Done
>
>> + <0 0x1c0e400 0 0x200>, /* rx0 */
>> + <0 0x1c0ea00 0 0x1f0>, /* pcs */
>> + <0 0x1c0e600 0 0x170>, /* tx1 */
>> + <0 0x1c0e800 0 0x200>, /* rx1 */
>> + <0 0x1c0ee00 0 0xf4>; /*
>> "pcs_com" same as pcs_misc? */
>
> Is this a TODO? I'd prefer all the comments on the reg properties to be
> removed.
>
Done
>> + clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
>> + clock-names = "pipe0";
>> +
>> + #phy-cells = <0>;
>> + #clock-cells = <1>;
>> + clock-output-names =
>> "pcie_1_pipe_clk";
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> stm@...2000 {
>> compatible = "arm,coresight-stm",
>> "arm,primecell";
>> reg = <0 0x06002000 0 0x1000>,
>> @@ -871,6 +984,31 @@
>> pins = "gpio46", "gpio47";
>> function = "qup13";
>> };
>> +
>> + pcie1_default_state: pcie1-default {
>> + clkreq {
>> + pins = "gpio79";
>> + function = "pcie1_clkreqn";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>
> Move this bias-pull-up to the idp file?
Done
>
>> + };
>> +
>> + reset-n {
>> + pins = "gpio2";
>> + function = "gpio";
>> +
>> + drive-strength = <16>;
>> + output-low;
>> + bias-disable;
>> + };
>> +
>> + wake-n {
>> + pins = "gpio3";
>> + function = "gpio";
>> +
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + };
>
> These last two nodes with the pull-up and drive-strength settings
> should
> be in the board files, like the idp one, instead of here in the SoC
> file. That way board designers can take the SoC and connect the pcie to
> an external device using these pins and set the configuration they want
> on these pins, or choose not to connect them to the SoC at all and use
> those pins for something else.
>
> In addition, it looks like the reset could be a reset-gpios property
> instead of an output-low config.
>
we are using reset property as perst gpio in pcie node.
>> + };
>> };
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists