Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: qcom: Add X1E80100 PCIe support

[Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>]

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 12:31:32PM +0200, Abel Vesa wrote:
> On 24-02-02 14:11:57, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 09:13:25AM +0100, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> > > On 01/02/2024 20:20, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > > On 29.01.2024 12:10, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > > > Add the compatible and the driver data for X1E80100.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 1 +
> > > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > > > index 10f2d0bb86be..2a6000e457bc 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > > > @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_pcie_match[] = {
> > > > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie0", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> > > > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie1", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> > > > >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8550", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> > > > > +	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-x1e80100", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> > > > 
> > > > I swear I'm not delaying everything related to x1 on purpose..
> > > > 
> > > > But..
> > > > 
> > > > Would a "qcom,pcie-v1.9.0" generic match string be a good idea?
> > > 
> > > Yes as fallback, this is why I used qcom,pcie-sm8550 as fallback for SM8650.
> > > 
> > 
> > Right. Fallback should be used here also.
> 
> So after digging a bit more ...
> 
> Nope. Fallback approach doesn't work for X1E80100.
> 
> The ddrss_sf_qtb clock is, on this platform, under RPMH control,
> and therefore not registered by the GCC. This implies this clock cannot
> be provided to the pcie controller node in DT, which implies the
> bindings are different when compared to sm8550. So dedicated compatible
> is needed.
> 
> So this patchset should remain as is.
> 

Apologies! I just went with the conversation without cross checking the DT
binding. You have already listed it as a separate entry.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்