[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nihqpqh42pue4hmvjpbk3bk2ogzxbsvlyexfa5diweajgwynwm@kmi6wa4pjth2>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:12:30 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@...ic.nl>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Thippeswamy Havalige <thippeswamy.havalige@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: PCI: xilinx-pcie: Add reset-gpios
for PERST#
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 12:57:44PM +0100, Mike Looijmans wrote:
> On 25-03-2025 09:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 08:18:26AM +0100, Mike Looijmans wrote:
> > > Introduce optional `reset-gpios` property to enable GPIO-based control
> > > of the PCIe root port PERST# signal, as described in pci.txt.
> > Drop pci.txt, we don't use TXT bindings anymore.
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans@...ic.nl>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > Add binding for reset-gpios
> > So what was in v1? Empty patch?
>
> Feedback on v1 was that I had to add bindings documentation...
>
>
> > > .../devicetree/bindings/pci/xlnx,axi-pcie-host.yaml | 5 +++++
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xlnx,axi-pcie-host.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xlnx,axi-pcie-host.yaml
> > > index fb87b960a250..2b0fabdd5e16 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xlnx,axi-pcie-host.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xlnx,axi-pcie-host.yaml
> > > @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ properties:
> > > ranges for the PCI memory regions (I/O space region is not
> > > supported by hardware)
> > > + reset-gpios:
> > > + maxItems: 1
> > Why do you need it? It's already there, in PCI schemas, isn't it?
> >
> > Why is this patch needed?
>
> Apparently not needed then, sorry for the noise.
>
That's my bad. I missed that this property is defined in the common schema.
Another source of confusion if you keep schemas in two different places.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists