[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b9ad0a6-acc0-aad9-c49d-e4a4b38374bb@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:40:24 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>
Cc: Frank Wunderlich <linux@...web.de>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>,
Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [RFC/RFT 2/6] dt-bindings: soc: grf: add
pcie30-{phy,pipe}-grf
On 19/04/2022 19:29, Frank Wunderlich wrote:
>> Gesendet: Montag, 18. April 2022 um 17:54 Uhr
>> Von: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip/grf.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip/grf.yaml
>>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ properties:
>>> oneOf:
>>> - items:
>>> - enum:
>>> + - rockchip,pcie30-phy-grf
>>> + - rockchip,pcie30-pipe-grf
>>
>> These are without SoC parts. Are these PCIe v3 General Register Files
>> part of some PCIe spec?
>
> imho they are shared across SoCs rk3568 and rk3588, but have only seen rk3568 implementation yet.
> PCIe driver currently supports these 2 Soc (different offsets in the Phy-GRF), but can only test rk3568.
>
> pipe-grf seems only be used for rk35688 (offset used in probe is defined for this SoC), which i cannot test.
>
> so i have left them SoC independed.
Compatibles should be SoC dependent, with some exceptions. Lack of
documentation or lack of possibility of testing is actually argument
against any exception, so they should be SoC specific/dependent.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists