On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:25:49PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:32 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:26:51PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:47 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > No great problem with having these in the controller node (assming it > > > > accurately describes the hardware) but I do think we ought to also be > > > > able to describe these per slot. PCIe is effectively point to point, so there's only 1 slot unless there's a PCIe switch in the middle. If that's the case, then it's all more complicated. > > > Can you explain what you think that would look like in the DT? > > > > I *think* that's just some properties on the nodes for the endpoints, > > note that the driver could just ignore them for now. Not sure where or > > if we document any extensions but child nodes are in section 4 of the > > v2.1 PCI bus binding. > > Hi Mark, > > I'm a little confused -- here is how I remember the chronology of the > "DT bindings" commit reviews, please correct me if I'm wrong: > > o JimQ submitted a pullreq for using voltage regulators in the same > style as the existing "rockport" PCIe driver. > o After some deliberation, RobH preferred that the voltage regulators > should go into the PCIe subnode device's DT node. IIRC, that's because you said there isn't a standard slot. > o JimQ put the voltage regulators in the subnode device's DT node. > o MarkB didn't like the fact that the code did a global search for the > regulator since it could not provide the owning struct device* handle. > o RobH relented, and said that if it is just two specific and standard > voltage regulators, perhaps they can go in the parent DT node after > all. > o JimQ put the regulators back in the PCIe node. > o MarkB now wants the regulators to go back into the child node again? > > Folks, please advise. > > Regards, > Jim Quinlan > Broadcom STB
