[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91ba9f70-3e8e-46f4-bd77-36abb8fae850@broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:42:23 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@...adcom.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, jim2101024@...il.com,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: PCI: brcm,stb-pcie: Add num-lanes
property
On 6/5/25 15:36, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 10:17:26AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 6/3/25 10:16, Jim Quinlan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 12:24 PM Florian Fainelli
>>> <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/30/25 16:32, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>> On 5/30/25 15:40, Jim Quinlan wrote:
>>>>>> Add optional num-lanes property Broadcom STB PCIe host controllers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@...adcom.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I take that back, I think this should be:
>>>>
>>>> num-lanes:
>>>> enum: [ 1, 2, 4 ]
>>>>
>>>> We are basically documenting the allowed values, not specifying that we
>>>> can repeat the num-lames property between 1 and 4 times.
>
> Are you confused with maxItems?
Yes I am.
>
>>>
>>> num-lanes is already defined as
>>>
>>> enum: [ 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 ]
>>
>> Right, but then we need to re-define it with our own specific constraints,
>> still, don't we?
>
> It is correct as-is.
Thanks!
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists