[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878s131377.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 10:12:44 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <openbsd@...all.nl>
Cc: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski
<kw@...ux.com>, Stan Skowronek <stan@...ellium.com>,
Mark Kettenis <kettenis@...nbsd.org>,
Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>,
Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: PCI: Add Apple PCI controller
Hi Mark,
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 09:10:53 +0100,
Mark Kettenis <openbsd@...all.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> What can I do to make progress with my binding proposal? It seems we're stuck
> on the MSI issue where you and robh disagree. I still think your idea of
> describing the MSIs as a range makes much more sense than describing them
> individually and bunching them together with the host bridge port interrupts.
>
It looks like I missed an email from Rob, which explains why we're in
limbo (it was left unread and unmarked, which in my flow means "read
once I have too much time on my hands"). Apologies for that, I'll try
and reply tonight (travelling at the moment).
> Op 15-08-2021 09:09 schreef Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>:
>
> Hi Alyssa,
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 05:25:24 +0100,
> Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io> wrote:
>
> Document the properties used by the Apple PCI controller. This is a
> fairly standard PCI controller, although it is not derived from any
> known non-Apple IP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>
>
> I would rather you post something as an extension to Mark's work, for
> multiple reasons:
>
> - Mark's patch is still being discussed, and is the current
> reference (specially given that it is already in use in OpenBSD and
> u-boot).
>
> - we cannot have multiple bindings. There can only be one, shared
> across implementations. Otherwise, you need a different kernel
> depending on whether you are booting from m1n1 or u-boot.
>
> - what you have here is vastly inconsistent (you are describing the
> MSIs twice, using two different methods).
>
> That's probably my fault. The current u-boot device tree is a bit of a
> Frankenstein thing to ease the transition from my initial binding to the
> current proposal. I should clean that up at some point.
That would certainly help. There are a lot of moving pieces at the
moment, and it is getting hard to get a clear picture of what is using
what.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists