[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tqte5pxvuhkqwr7gaxblx6orprd74qyw5ekrx53blbbygtrgpn@3uprlzf5otou>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 12:49:49 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Thippeswamy Havalige <thippesw@....com>
Cc: manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, bharat.kumar.gogada@....com, michal.simek@....com,
lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: PCI: xilinx-cpm: Add compatible
string for CPM5 controller 1
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:01:23PM +0530, Thippeswamy Havalige wrote:
> The Xilinx Versal Premium series includes the CPM5 block, which supports
> two Type-A Root Port controllers operating at Gen5 speed.
>
> This patch adds a compatible string to distinguish between the two CPM5
> Root Port controllers. The error interrupt registers and corresponding bits
> for Controller 0 and Controller 1 are located at different offsets, making
> it necessary to differentiate them.
>
> By using the new compatible string, the driver can properly handle these
> platform-specific differences between the controllers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thippeswamy Havalige <thippesw@....com>
> ---
> changes in v2:
> --------------
> Modify compatible string to differentiate controller 0 and controller 1
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml
> index 989fb0fa2577..3783075661e2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties:
> enum:
> - xlnx,versal-cpm-host-1.00
> - xlnx,versal-cpm5-host
> + - xlnx,versal-cpm5-host1-1
Hm, I thought my irony was obvious, but it seems was not. Apologies.
"1-1", "1-2", "1-1-1" or "1-1.00-1" are all poor choices.
I was waiting for some reasonable name idea, because it is you who knows
the hardware and has datasheet.
I guess if I have to come up with name then "host1" was better. Or
"cpm5-1-host". Dunno, all these names "5" in "cpm5" and "-1.00" in IP
version are randomly constructed.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists