From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/32] pci: PCIe driver for Marvell Armada 370/XP systems Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:02:05 -0600 Message-ID: <20130313170205.GB24042@obsidianresearch.com> References: <513E519B.6010503@firmworks.com> <20130311232516.GA13873@obsidianresearch.com> <513E6AFE.3090304@firmworks.com> <20130312070852.GA6727@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <20130312155749.GA1820@obsidianresearch.com> <20130312203819.GA23221@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <20130312210328.GA22702@obsidianresearch.com> <20130312213006.GA23717@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <20130312220854.GA23112@obsidianresearch.com> <20130313081815.GD25940@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130313081815.GD25940@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: Mitch Bradley , Lior Amsalem , Russell King - ARM Linux , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Eran Ben-Avi , Nadav Haklai , Maen Suleiman , Bjorn Helgaas , Shadi Ammouri , Tawfik Bayouk , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:18:15AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > Mitch already answered this. The specification is now almost 15 years > old and it couldn't possibly have foreseen all of the future use-cases. > If the specification is too restrictive and Mitch gives his blessing to > remove some of the restrictions, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't > do so if it lets us represent the reality of hardware more accurately in > DT. I understand the spec is old, and I have no problem with making a Linux specific revision, but do *that* - don't bury some random deviation inside the bindings for a driver. I even suggested some language, but I feel more thought is needed to consider how to model the standardized ECAM mechanism.. > Furthermore we're not discussing radical changes. None of the changes > will be backwards-incompatible, but they will allow recent hardware to > be represented more correctly or conveniently. Sure, but it is still inconsistent, one MMIO config mechansim is in ranges, one is in regs. Plus I don't think tegra's case is a great starting point to design a spec update, it's config access mechanism is especially strange... Anyhow, I think this has been hashed to death, as long as your final binding has the 'device_type = pci' on the pcie-controller node I think it will be fine. Jason