[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f2e0631-6c59-4298-b36e-060708970ced@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 11:11:43 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <krishna.chundru@....qualcomm.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Kishon Vijay Abraham I
<kishon@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
quic_vbadigan@...cinc.com, quic_mrana@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8750: Add PCIe PHY and
controller node
On 10/8/25 10:00 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 10/8/25 6:41 AM, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2025 5:07 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 04:32:54PM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
>>>> Add PCIe controller and PHY nodes which supports data rates of 8GT/s
>>>> and x2 lane.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I tried to boot the upstream kernel (next-20250925 defconfig) on my
>>> Pakala MTP with latest LA1.0 META and unless I disable &pcie0 the device
>>> is crashing during boot as PCIe is being probed.
>>>
>>> Is this a known problem? Is there any workaround/changes in flight that
>>> I'm missing?
>>>
>> Hi Bjorn,
>>
>> we need this fix for the PCIe to work properly. Please try it once.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251008-sm8750-v1-1-daeadfcae980@oss.qualcomm.com/
>
> This surely shouldn't cause/fix any issues, no?
Apparently this is a real fix, because sm8750.dtsi defines the PCIe
PHY under a port node, while the MTP DT assigns perst-gpios to the RC
node, which the legacy binding ("everything under the RC node") parsing
code can't cope with (please mention that in the commit message, Krishna)
And I couldn't come up with a way to describe "either both are required
if any is present under the RC node or none are allowed" in yaml
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists