| Message ID | 20250220094251.230936-4-quic_varada@quicinc.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add PCIe support for Qualcomm IPQ5332 | expand |
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:06:13PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/03/2025 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 20/02/2025 10:42, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > >> All DT entries except "reg" is similar between ipq5332 and ipq9574. ipq9574 > >> has 5 registers while ipq5332 has 6. MHI is the additional (i.e. sixth > >> entry). Since this matches with the sdx55's "reg" definition which allows > >> for 5 or 6 registers, combine ipq9574 with sdx55. > >> > >> This change is to prepare ipq9574 to be used as ipq5332's fallback > >> compatible. > >> > >> Acked-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > > > Unreviewed. > > > >> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com> > >> --- > >> v8: Add 'Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski' > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >> index 7235d6554cfb..4b4927178abc 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >> @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ allOf: > >> enum: > >> - qcom,pcie-ipq6018 > >> - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3 > >> - - qcom,pcie-ipq9574 > > > > Why you did not explain that you are going to affect users of DTS? > > > > NAK Sorry for not explicitly calling this out. I thought that would be seen from the following DTS related patches. > I did not connect the dots, but I pointed out that you break users and > your DTS is wrong: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7551daa-cce5-47b3-873f-21b9c5026ed2@kernel.org/ > > so you should come back with questions to clarify what to do, not keep > pushing this incorrect patchset. > > My bad, I should really have zero trust. It looks like it is not possible to have ipq9574 as fallback (for ipq5332) without making changes to ipq9574 since the "reg" constraint is different between the two. And this in turn would break the ABI w.r.t. ipq9574. To overcome this, two approaches seem to be availabe 1. Document that ipq9574 is impacted and rework these patches to minimize the impact as much as possible (or) 2. Handle ipq5332 as a separate compatible (without fallback) and reuse the constraints of sdx55 for "reg" and ipq9574 for the others (like clock etc.). This approach will also have to revert [1], as it assumes ipq9574 as fallback. Please advice which of the above would be appropriate. If there is a better 3rd alternative please let me know, will align with that approach. Thanks Varada 1 - https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml?id=f67d04b18337249b0faa5cab6223c0bb203f6333
On 10/03/2025 08:44, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:06:13PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 06/03/2025 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 20/02/2025 10:42, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: >>>> All DT entries except "reg" is similar between ipq5332 and ipq9574. ipq9574 >>>> has 5 registers while ipq5332 has 6. MHI is the additional (i.e. sixth >>>> entry). Since this matches with the sdx55's "reg" definition which allows >>>> for 5 or 6 registers, combine ipq9574 with sdx55. >>>> >>>> This change is to prepare ipq9574 to be used as ipq5332's fallback >>>> compatible. >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> >>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>> >>> Unreviewed. >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>>> v8: Add 'Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski' >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml >>>> index 7235d6554cfb..4b4927178abc 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml >>>> @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ allOf: >>>> enum: >>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq6018 >>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3 >>>> - - qcom,pcie-ipq9574 >>> >>> Why you did not explain that you are going to affect users of DTS? >>> >>> NAK > > Sorry for not explicitly calling this out. I thought that would be seen from the > following DTS related patches. > >> I did not connect the dots, but I pointed out that you break users and >> your DTS is wrong: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7551daa-cce5-47b3-873f-21b9c5026ed2@kernel.org/ >> >> so you should come back with questions to clarify what to do, not keep >> pushing this incorrect patchset. >> >> My bad, I should really have zero trust. > > It looks like it is not possible to have ipq9574 as fallback (for ipq5332) > without making changes to ipq9574 since the "reg" constraint is different > between the two. And this in turn would break the ABI w.r.t. ipq9574. I don't get why this is not possible. You have one list for ipq9574 and existing compatible devices, and you add second list for new device. ... or you just keep existing order. Why you need to keep changing order every time you add new device? > > To overcome this, two approaches seem to be availabe > > 1. Document that ipq9574 is impacted and rework these patches to > minimize the impact as much as possible What impact? What is the reason to impact ipq9574? What is the actual issue? > > (or) > > 2. Handle ipq5332 as a separate compatible (without fallback) and reuse > the constraints of sdx55 for "reg" and ipq9574 for the others (like > clock etc.). This approach will also have to revert [1], as it > assumes ipq9574 as fallback. > > Please advice which of the above would be appropriate. If there is a better 3rd > alternative please let me know, will align with that approach. Keep existing order. Why every time we see new device, it comes up with a different order? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:37:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 10/03/2025 08:44, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:06:13PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 06/03/2025 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 20/02/2025 10:42, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > >>>> All DT entries except "reg" is similar between ipq5332 and ipq9574. ipq9574 > >>>> has 5 registers while ipq5332 has 6. MHI is the additional (i.e. sixth > >>>> entry). Since this matches with the sdx55's "reg" definition which allows > >>>> for 5 or 6 registers, combine ipq9574 with sdx55. > >>>> > >>>> This change is to prepare ipq9574 to be used as ipq5332's fallback > >>>> compatible. > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > >>> > >>> Unreviewed. > >>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> v8: Add 'Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski' > >>>> --- > >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml | 2 +- > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >>>> index 7235d6554cfb..4b4927178abc 100644 > >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >>>> @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ allOf: > >>>> enum: > >>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq6018 > >>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3 > >>>> - - qcom,pcie-ipq9574 > >>> > >>> Why you did not explain that you are going to affect users of DTS? > >>> > >>> NAK > > > > Sorry for not explicitly calling this out. I thought that would be seen from the > > following DTS related patches. > > > >> I did not connect the dots, but I pointed out that you break users and > >> your DTS is wrong: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7551daa-cce5-47b3-873f-21b9c5026ed2@kernel.org/ > >> > >> so you should come back with questions to clarify what to do, not keep > >> pushing this incorrect patchset. > >> > >> My bad, I should really have zero trust. > > > > It looks like it is not possible to have ipq9574 as fallback (for ipq5332) > > without making changes to ipq9574 since the "reg" constraint is different > > between the two. And this in turn would break the ABI w.r.t. ipq9574. > > I don't get why this is not possible. You have one list for ipq9574 and > existing compatible devices, and you add second list for new device. > > ... or you just keep existing order. Why you need to keep changing order > every time you add new device? Presently, sdx55 and ipq9574 have the following reg/reg-names constraints. compatible | qcom,pcie-sdx55 | qcom,pcie-ipq9574 ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ reg minItems| 5 | 5 maxItems| 6 | 5 ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ reg-names | | minItems| 5 | 5 ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ maxItems| | 5 (6 for ipq5332) ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ items | | | parf | dbi | dbi | elbi | elbi | atu | atu | parf | config | config | mhi | (add mhi for ipq5332) ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ To make ipq9574 as fallback for ipq5332, have to add "mhi" to reg-names of ipq9574. Once I add that, the sdx55 and ipq9574 is the same list but in different order. If this would not be considered as duplication of the same constraint, then I can club ipq5332 with ipq9574. If this would be considered as duplication, then sdx55 and ipq9574 would have to use the same reg-names list and sdx55 or ipq9574 reg-names order would change. > > To overcome this, two approaches seem to be availabe > > > > 1. Document that ipq9574 is impacted and rework these patches to > > minimize the impact as much as possible > > What impact? What is the reason to impact ipq9574? What is the actual issue? By impact, I meant the change in the reg-names order as mentioned above (for considered as duplication). > > (or) > > > > 2. Handle ipq5332 as a separate compatible (without fallback) and reuse > > the constraints of sdx55 for "reg" and ipq9574 for the others (like > > clock etc.). This approach will also have to revert [1], as it > > assumes ipq9574 as fallback. > > > > Please advice which of the above would be appropriate. If there is a better 3rd > > alternative please let me know, will align with that approach. > > Keep existing order. Why every time we see new device, it comes up with > a different order? Will be able to do that based on the answer to 'duplication' question and how to handle that. if (adding mhi to ipq9574 reg-names != duplication) /* Keep existing order */ * Append "mhi" to ipq9574 * use ipq9574 reg-names order for ipq5332 else * combine ipq9574 & sdx55 reg-names if (use sdx55 reg-names order) /* patchset v11 is using this approach */ * change ipq9574 * follow the same for ipq5332 else if (use ipq9574 order) * change sdx55 * follow the same for ipq5332 Please advice. Thanks Varada
On 11/03/2025 06:01, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:37:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 10/03/2025 08:44, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:06:13PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 06/03/2025 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 20/02/2025 10:42, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: >>>>>> All DT entries except "reg" is similar between ipq5332 and ipq9574. ipq9574 >>>>>> has 5 registers while ipq5332 has 6. MHI is the additional (i.e. sixth >>>>>> entry). Since this matches with the sdx55's "reg" definition which allows >>>>>> for 5 or 6 registers, combine ipq9574 with sdx55. >>>>>> >>>>>> This change is to prepare ipq9574 to be used as ipq5332's fallback >>>>>> compatible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> Unreviewed. >>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> v8: Add 'Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski' >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml >>>>>> index 7235d6554cfb..4b4927178abc 100644 >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml >>>>>> @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ allOf: >>>>>> enum: >>>>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq6018 >>>>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3 >>>>>> - - qcom,pcie-ipq9574 >>>>> >>>>> Why you did not explain that you are going to affect users of DTS? >>>>> >>>>> NAK >>> >>> Sorry for not explicitly calling this out. I thought that would be seen from the >>> following DTS related patches. >>> >>>> I did not connect the dots, but I pointed out that you break users and >>>> your DTS is wrong: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7551daa-cce5-47b3-873f-21b9c5026ed2@kernel.org/ >>>> >>>> so you should come back with questions to clarify what to do, not keep >>>> pushing this incorrect patchset. >>>> >>>> My bad, I should really have zero trust. >>> >>> It looks like it is not possible to have ipq9574 as fallback (for ipq5332) >>> without making changes to ipq9574 since the "reg" constraint is different >>> between the two. And this in turn would break the ABI w.r.t. ipq9574. >> >> I don't get why this is not possible. You have one list for ipq9574 and >> existing compatible devices, and you add second list for new device. >> >> ... or you just keep existing order. Why you need to keep changing order >> every time you add new device? > > Presently, sdx55 and ipq9574 have the following reg/reg-names constraints. > > compatible | qcom,pcie-sdx55 | qcom,pcie-ipq9574 > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > reg minItems| 5 | 5 > maxItems| 6 | 5 > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > reg-names | | > minItems| 5 | 5 > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > maxItems| | 5 (6 for ipq5332) > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > items | | > | parf | dbi > | dbi | elbi > | elbi | atu > | atu | parf > | config | config > | mhi | (add mhi for ipq5332) > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > > To make ipq9574 as fallback for ipq5332, have to add "mhi" to reg-names of > ipq9574. only ipq5332 gets additional item, not ipq9574. Your sentence is not correct. You do not have to add mhi to ipq9574. Neither we, nor schema asked you to do this. > Once I add that, the sdx55 and ipq9574 is the same list but in > different order. > You cannot change the order in existing devices. > If this would not be considered as duplication of the same constraint, then I > can club ipq5332 with ipq9574. > > If this would be considered as duplication, then sdx55 and ipq9574 would have to > use the same reg-names list and sdx55 or ipq9574 reg-names order would change. > >>> To overcome this, two approaches seem to be availabe >>> >>> 1. Document that ipq9574 is impacted and rework these patches to >>> minimize the impact as much as possible >> >> What impact? What is the reason to impact ipq9574? What is the actual issue? > > By impact, I meant the change in the reg-names order as mentioned above (for > considered as duplication). Then you must eliminate the impact, not minimize it. > >>> (or) >>> >>> 2. Handle ipq5332 as a separate compatible (without fallback) and reuse >>> the constraints of sdx55 for "reg" and ipq9574 for the others (like >>> clock etc.). This approach will also have to revert [1], as it >>> assumes ipq9574 as fallback. >>> >>> Please advice which of the above would be appropriate. If there is a better 3rd >>> alternative please let me know, will align with that approach. >> >> Keep existing order. Why every time we see new device, it comes up with >> a different order? > > Will be able to do that based on the answer to 'duplication' question and how to > handle that. I don't understand what is duplication of something here. > > if (adding mhi to ipq9574 reg-names != duplication) > > /* Keep existing order */ > > * Append "mhi" to ipq9574 ipq9574 does not have mhi, does it? If it has, it should be separate patch with its own explanation of the hardware. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:54:55AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/03/2025 06:01, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:37:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 10/03/2025 08:44, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:06:13PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 06/03/2025 12:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>> On 20/02/2025 10:42, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > >>>>>> All DT entries except "reg" is similar between ipq5332 and ipq9574. ipq9574 > >>>>>> has 5 registers while ipq5332 has 6. MHI is the additional (i.e. sixth > >>>>>> entry). Since this matches with the sdx55's "reg" definition which allows > >>>>>> for 5 or 6 registers, combine ipq9574 with sdx55. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This change is to prepare ipq9574 to be used as ipq5332's fallback > >>>>>> compatible. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Acked-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > >>>>> > >>>>> Unreviewed. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> v8: Add 'Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski' > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml | 2 +- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >>>>>> index 7235d6554cfb..4b4927178abc 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml > >>>>>> @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ allOf: > >>>>>> enum: > >>>>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq6018 > >>>>>> - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3 > >>>>>> - - qcom,pcie-ipq9574 > >>>>> > >>>>> Why you did not explain that you are going to affect users of DTS? > >>>>> > >>>>> NAK > >>> > >>> Sorry for not explicitly calling this out. I thought that would be seen from the > >>> following DTS related patches. > >>> > >>>> I did not connect the dots, but I pointed out that you break users and > >>>> your DTS is wrong: > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7551daa-cce5-47b3-873f-21b9c5026ed2@kernel.org/ > >>>> > >>>> so you should come back with questions to clarify what to do, not keep > >>>> pushing this incorrect patchset. > >>>> > >>>> My bad, I should really have zero trust. > >>> > >>> It looks like it is not possible to have ipq9574 as fallback (for ipq5332) > >>> without making changes to ipq9574 since the "reg" constraint is different > >>> between the two. And this in turn would break the ABI w.r.t. ipq9574. > >> > >> I don't get why this is not possible. You have one list for ipq9574 and > >> existing compatible devices, and you add second list for new device. > >> > >> ... or you just keep existing order. Why you need to keep changing order > >> every time you add new device? > > > > Presently, sdx55 and ipq9574 have the following reg/reg-names constraints. > > > > compatible | qcom,pcie-sdx55 | qcom,pcie-ipq9574 > > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > > reg minItems| 5 | 5 > > maxItems| 6 | 5 > > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > > reg-names | | > > minItems| 5 | 5 > > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > > maxItems| | 5 (6 for ipq5332) > > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > > items | | > > | parf | dbi > > | dbi | elbi > > | elbi | atu > > | atu | parf > > | config | config > > | mhi | (add mhi for ipq5332) > > ----------------+-----------------------+------------------ > > > > To make ipq9574 as fallback for ipq5332, have to add "mhi" to reg-names of > > ipq9574. > > only ipq5332 gets additional item, not ipq9574. Your sentence is not > correct. You do not have to add mhi to ipq9574. Neither we, nor schema > asked you to do this. > > > > Once I add that, the sdx55 and ipq9574 is the same list but in > > different order. > > > > You cannot change the order in existing devices. Ok. > > If this would not be considered as duplication of the same constraint, then I > > can club ipq5332 with ipq9574. > > > > If this would be considered as duplication, then sdx55 and ipq9574 would have to > > use the same reg-names list and sdx55 or ipq9574 reg-names order would change. > > > >>> To overcome this, two approaches seem to be availabe > >>> > >>> 1. Document that ipq9574 is impacted and rework these patches to > >>> minimize the impact as much as possible > >> > >> What impact? What is the reason to impact ipq9574? What is the actual issue? > > > > By impact, I meant the change in the reg-names order as mentioned above (for > > considered as duplication). > > Then you must eliminate the impact, not minimize it. Ok. > >>> (or) > >>> > >>> 2. Handle ipq5332 as a separate compatible (without fallback) and reuse > >>> the constraints of sdx55 for "reg" and ipq9574 for the others (like > >>> clock etc.). This approach will also have to revert [1], as it > >>> assumes ipq9574 as fallback. > >>> > >>> Please advice which of the above would be appropriate. If there is a better 3rd > >>> alternative please let me know, will align with that approach. > >> > >> Keep existing order. Why every time we see new device, it comes up with > >> a different order? > > > > Will be able to do that based on the answer to 'duplication' question and how to > > handle that. > > I don't understand what is duplication of something here. By duplication, I meant the same set of reg-names (in different order). > > if (adding mhi to ipq9574 reg-names != duplication) > > > > /* Keep existing order */ > > > > * Append "mhi" to ipq9574 > > ipq9574 does not have mhi, does it? ipq9574 also has it. > If it has, it should be separate patch with its own explanation of the > hardware. Will discard these patches from the patchset - dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Use sdx55 reg description for ipq9574 Varadarajan Narayanan arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Reorder reg and reg-names Varadarajan Narayanan Will add mhi for ipq9574 and post the next version. Is that ok? Thanks Varada
On 11/03/2025 09:16, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: >> I don't understand what is duplication of something here. > > By duplication, I meant the same set of reg-names (in different order). > >>> if (adding mhi to ipq9574 reg-names != duplication) >>> >>> /* Keep existing order */ >>> >>> * Append "mhi" to ipq9574 >> >> ipq9574 does not have mhi, does it? > > ipq9574 also has it. Current binding says no, so something is missing. > >> If it has, it should be separate patch with its own explanation of the >> hardware. > > Will discard these patches from the patchset - > > dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Use sdx55 reg description for ipq9574 Varadarajan Narayanan > arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Reorder reg and reg-names Varadarajan Narayanan > > Will add mhi for ipq9574 and post the next version. Is that ok? Yes. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml index 7235d6554cfb..4b4927178abc 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml @@ -169,7 +169,6 @@ allOf: enum: - qcom,pcie-ipq6018 - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3 - - qcom,pcie-ipq9574 then: properties: reg: @@ -210,6 +209,7 @@ allOf: compatible: contains: enum: + - qcom,pcie-ipq9574 - qcom,pcie-sdx55 then: properties: