Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq5332: Add PCIe related nodes

[Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com>]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 12:32:35PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 05:00:18PM +0530, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> > From: Praveenkumar I <quic_ipkumar@quicinc.com>
> >
> > Add phy and controller nodes for pcie0_x1 and pcie1_x2.
>
> > +		pcie1: pcie@18000000 {
> > +			compatible = "qcom,pcie-ipq5332", "qcom,pcie-ipq9574";
> > +			reg = <0x00088000 0x3000>,
> > +			      <0x18000000 0xf1d>,
> > +			      <0x18000f20 0xa8>,
> > +			      <0x18001000 0x1000>,
> > +			      <0x18100000 0x1000>,
> > +			      <0x0008b000 0x1000>;
> > +			reg-names = "parf",
> > +				    "dbi",
> > +				    "elbi",
> > +				    "atu",
> > +				    "config",
> > +				    "mhi";
> > +			device_type = "pci";
> > +			linux,pci-domain = <1>;
> > +			bus-range = <0x00 0xff>;
>
> This bus-range isn't needed, is it?  pci_parse_request_of_pci_ranges()
> should default to 0x00-0xff if no bus-range property is present.

Ok.

>
> > +			num-lanes = <2>;
> > +			phys = <&pcie1_phy>;
> > +			phy-names = "pciephy";
>
> I think num-lanes and PHY info are per-Root Port properties, not a
> host controller properties, aren't they?  Some of the clock and reset
> properties might also be per-Root Port.
>
> Ideally, I think per-Root Port properties should be in a child device
> as they are here:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/mvebu-pci.txt?id=v6.12#n137
> but it looks like the num-lanes parsing is done in
> dw_pcie_get_resources(), which can only handle a single num-lanes per
> DWC controller, so maybe it's impractical to add a child device here.
>
> But I wonder if it would be useful to at least group the per-Root Port
> things together in the binding to help us start thinking about the
> difference between the controller and the Root Port(s).

This looks like a big change and might impact the existing
SoCs/platforms. To minimize the impact, should we continue
supporting the legacy method in addition to the new per-Root port
approach. Should we take this up separately? Kindly advice.

Thanks
Varada