From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E2032C11DB for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 16:22:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761150151; cv=none; b=OkwEfaUU5qGWU3AZh+KbXc4eLMZ427q39EfgVczY03Ihwh5xGLtbH6n4P1kZEdWmNBaFb+VIdet0u4j10V7TjdtseTGp3osR8+C9EQ1nYgeTDeqEK9gdY/5CyuQqs8sELrNy+GqCMlSmC9syWiTG+V0m5k1mO70xJ/TPldH1zms= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761150151; c=relaxed/simple; bh=a7qOX4vLoFXsF/KBfrnam9mJzdoRDBYaNwPXMz2uNuc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mCZpOqRMThyZgUpkWWv0N7tqAjyyG8H21Fx0i4CWoctIgtL/77YQBLVbkcEkl0a2emvUACe9VQ10zkl/EXi8iiY4eg7CgL4jq5D1UNsjArsNLB3IrdJuvQzBkJYTdqFAkCzq3z3Lg/2wVXW8NHl88ooEkjC0488Hba3Ki6F8hks= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=bGGplLuD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="bGGplLuD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8BFEC4CEE7; Wed, 22 Oct 2025 16:22:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1761150150; bh=a7qOX4vLoFXsF/KBfrnam9mJzdoRDBYaNwPXMz2uNuc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=bGGplLuDFaHooPKYXkkLnO0fT658NLWhLbrVWp7iph5O9GbYMn+X6444lfkAHDx4w xoF140XquMlg2io5MeFGghQsq82gDml4gRXLm7EhiDy2gCNxG48Fb2xjDMYRw+FmHT tIcyYjn3iYqrpRZoOYfK39bCymRDVXEf2cxVnOEttZ6ogY/WMma2Ss6nDXWReyL0H5 29aTyUKGfr/5Sm3+jX/3QZk8AK4JNCe4AFHTrh5VYt7IY9jnaOepUsIT3b9N+3wO8F 5qMzktaacfqUpRh4+oZKNgmv4Bx9SqkIGiB07YVS4dSILgMF496cfNi0RFdIo1NZfM Yq9b1uQZs2quw== Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:22:29 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Manivannan Sadhasivam Cc: Shawn Lin , Heiko Stuebner , Bjorn Helgaas , Thierry Reding , linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Niklas Cassel , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI: of: Add of_pci_clkreq_present() Message-ID: <20251022162229.GA1256220@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 03:59:13PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 06:13:59PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > > 在 2025/10/22 星期三 18:02, Manivannan Sadhasivam 写道: > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 03:48:24PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > > > > of_pci_clkreq_present() is used by host drivers to decide whether the clkreq# > > > > is properly connected and could enable L1.1/L1.2 support. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin > > > > --- > > > > drivers/pci/of.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > > > drivers/pci/pci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/of.c b/drivers/pci/of.c > > > > index 3579265f1198..52c6d365083b 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pci/of.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/of.c > > > > @@ -1010,3 +1010,21 @@ int of_pci_get_equalization_presets(struct device *dev, > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_equalization_presets); > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * of_pci_clkreq_present() - Check if the "supports-clkreq" is present > > > > > > I don't see a benefit of this API, tbh. The API name creates an > > > impression that the API will check for the presence of CLKREQ# > > > signal in DT, but it checks for the presence of the > > > 'supports-clkreq' property. Even though the presence of the > > > property implies that the CLKREQ# routing is available, I'd > > > prefer to check for the property explicitly instead of hiding it > > > inside this API. > > > > It makes sense. > > > > Will the name of_pci_supports_clkreq_present() look good? Or we > > just drop it and let host drivers to explicitly check > > supports-clkreq inside their code? > > I'd prefer to drop the API. An API might help with consistency across DT bindings. We don't want drivers to pick their own names for 'supports-clkreq'. But the pci-bus-common schema already includes 'supports-clkreq', and that's probably enough: https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/979fea8f3c18/dtschema/schemas/pci/pci-bus-common.yaml#L155