[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dcf612e6-cfe6-4a4d-8001-2e9912534807@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 21:09:42 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: mr.nuke.me@...il.com, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Add IPQ9574 PCIe
controller
On 11/04/2024 20:00, mr.nuke.me@...il.com wrote:
>
>
> On 4/9/24 15:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/04/2024 21:08, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>> IPQ9574 has PCIe controllers which are almost identical to IPQ6018.
>>> The only difference is that the "iface" clock is not required.
>>> Document this difference along with the compatible string.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml | 34 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> index cf9a6910b542..1915bea580d3 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ properties:
>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq8064-v2
>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq8074
>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3
>>> + - qcom,pcie-ipq9574
>>> - qcom,pcie-msm8996
>>> - qcom,pcie-qcs404
>>> - qcom,pcie-sdm845
>>> @@ -397,6 +398,37 @@ allOf:
>>> - const: axi_m_sticky # AXI Master Sticky reset
>>> - const: axi_s_sticky # AXI Slave Sticky reset
>>>
>>
>> Where do you constrain the reg?
>
> I didn't realize that was also required -- the make checks should have
> picked this up too? I might be invoking the tests incorrectly.
>
> I should add the ipq9574 in the same list as ipq8074-gen3 and ipq6018,
> correct?
If you add new variant, look at existing compatibles where they appear.
If there is a if: constraining compatibles, then it's a hint you should
do the same for your device. So yes, you must constrain all properties
which are made flexible in top-level properties.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists