Am Montag, den 24.03.2014, 12:46 +0000 schrieb Phil.Edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx: > Hi Ben, > > On: 24/03/2014 12:25, Phil wrote: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] dt-bindings: pci: rcar pcie device tree > bindings > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > On: 24/03/2014 12:16, Ben wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] dt-bindings: pci: rcar pcie device tree > bindings > > > > > > On 24/03/14 12:04, Phil.Edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > Hi Lucas, > > > > > > > > On: 21/03/2014 15:02, Phil wrote: > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] dt-bindings: pci: rcar pcie device tree > > > > bindings > > > >> > > > >> Hi Lucas, > > > >> > > > >> On: 21/03/2014 14:31, Lucas wrote: > > > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] dt-bindings: pci: rcar pcie device > tree > > > > bindings > > > >>> > > > >>> Am Freitag, den 21.03.2014, 14:18 +0000 schrieb > > > >>> Phil.Edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx: > > > >>>> Hi Lucas, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 21/03/2014 11:24, Lucas wrote: > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] dt-bindings: pci: rcar pcie device > > > > tree > > > >>>> bindings > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Am Freitag, den 21.03.2014, 10:32 +0000 schrieb Phil Edworthy: > > > >>>>>> This patch adds the bindings for the rcar PCIE driver. The > > > > driver > > > >>>>>> resides under drivers/pci/host/pcie-rcar.c > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Phil Edworthy <phil.edworthy@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I have one question below. If you can answer this with yes after > > > >>>>> thinking again about it, this is: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>>> --- > > > >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rcar-pci.txt | 40 > > > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) > > > >>>>>> create mode 100644 > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rcar-pci.txt > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rcar-pci.txt > > > > b/ > > > >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rcar-pci.txt > > > >>>>>> new file mode 100644 > > > >>>>>> index 0000000..0e219b0 > > > >>>>>> --- /dev/null > > > >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rcar-pci.txt > > > >>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ > > > >>>>>> +* Renesas RCar PCIe interface > > > >>>>>> + > > > >>>>>> +Required properties: > > > >>>>>> +- compatible: should contain one of the following > > > >>>>>> + "renesas,r8a7779-pcie", "renesas,r8a7790-pcie", > > > >>>> "renesas,r8a7791-pcie" > > > >>>>>> +- reg: base addresses and lengths of the pcie controller. > > > >>>>>> +- #address-cells: set to <3> > > > >>>>>> +- #size-cells: set to <2> > > > >>>>>> +- device_type: set to "pci" > > > >>>>>> +- ranges: ranges for the PCI memory and I/O regions > > > >>>>>> +- interrupts: interrupt values for MSI interrupt > > > >>>>>> +- #interrupt-cells: set to <1> > > > >>>>>> +- interrupt-map-mask and interrupt-map: standard PCI > properties > > > >>>>>> + to define the mapping of the PCIe interface to interrupt > > > >>>>>> + numbers. > > > >>>>>> +- clocks: from common clock binding: handle to pci clock. > > > >>>>>> +- clock-names: from common clock binding: should be "pcie" > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> You really only have one PCIe clock? So the controller is > > > > generating the > > > >>>>> PCIe bus clock from it's register clock? No need to enable any > > > > other > > > >>>>> clock for PCIe to work? > > > >>>> Yes, just the one clock. The PCIe bus clock is an external clock > > > > dedicated > > > >>>> to PCIe and SATA, and we have no control over it. > > > >>>> > > > >>> Is this some kind of always-on clock? If not you probably want a > > > >>> reference to it from the PCIe driver even if it's shared between > SATA > > > >>> and PCIe. After all you don't want to end up unconditionally > enabling > > > >>> this clock from the board or SoC level just to have PCIe working, > > > > right? > > > >> Ok, I see, I'll need a reference to a board clock, even if it's > always > > > > on for > > > >> these boards. > > > > One small question... > > > > > > > > The patches added the PCIe host controller to two devices, r8a7790 > and > > > > r8a7791. The r8a7790-based Lager board doesn't have the necessary > hardware > > > > to use PCIe, so should I add a dummy pcie_bus clock to the Lager > board > > > > dts, even though PCIe is not used? > > > > > > > > I'm just wondering what the dts file looks like for a board that > doesn't > > > > support many interfaces. Does it become littered with dummy clocks > and > > > > regulators? > > > > > > The bridge node should be set to disabled by default so it never gets > > > probed. Any boards that want to use it can over-ride the status to be > > > enabled. > > Ok, thanks. > Hmm, yes it doesn't get probed, but you still get a build problem as the > DT entry references an clock that doesn't exist. Maybe I'm missing > something... > If the clock is a board supplied one then you have to supply to clocks property from the board dts, to get rid of the compile failure. You can not have phandles in the PCIe node referencing a non-existing clock. Regards, Lucas -- Pengutronix e.K. | Lucas Stach | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5076 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
