linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/21] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Add PCIe bridge node

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250103210531.GA3252@bhelgaas>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:05:31 -0600
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/21] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Add PCIe bridge node

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 04:46:21PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Qcom SoCs, the PCIe host bridge is connected to a single PCIe bridge
> for each controller instance. Hence, add a node to represent the bridge.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> index 39bd8f0eba1e..fe5485256b22 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
> @@ -2203,6 +2203,16 @@ pcie0: pcie@...0000 {
>  			dma-coherent;
>  
>  			status = "disabled";
> +
> +			pcie@0 {
> +				device_type = "pci";
> +				reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
> +				bus-range = <0x01 0xff>;

Hi Mani, most or all of the patches in this series add this
"bus-range" property.  IIUC, these are all Root Ports and hence the
secondary/subordinate bus numbers should be programmable.

If that's the case, I don't think we need to include "bus-range" in DT
for them, do we?

Bjorn