On 11/8/22 19:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 06/11/2022 23:25, Marek Vasut wrote:The i.MX6 and i.MX7D does not use block controller to toggle PCIe reset, hence the PCIe DT description contains three reset entries on these older SoCs. Add this exception into the binding document. Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> --- Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@xxxxxxx> To: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- V2: - Add mx8mq to 3-reset PCIe core variant - Handle the resets in allOf section V3: - Reinstate reset: maxItems:3 and add minItems:2 - Move reset-names back to main section - The validation no longer works and introduces errors like these: arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm-verdin-wifi-dahlia.dtb: pcie@33800000: reset-names:0: 'pciephy' was expected V4: - Reinstate reset minItems and maxItems - Turn the first two reset-names items into enums to cover all the various name combinations, sort the rest in allOf section --- .../bindings/pci/fsl,imx6q-pcie.yaml | 34 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/fsl,imx6q-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/fsl,imx6q-pcie.yaml index b14c12a47cc1c..46fc29384ed34 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/fsl,imx6q-pcie.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/fsl,imx6q-pcie.yaml @@ -84,14 +84,16 @@ properties: - const: pcie_phyresets:+ minItems: 2 maxItems: 3 description: Phandles to PCIe-related reset lines exposed by SRC IP block. Additional required by imx7d-pcie and imx8mq-pcie.reset-names:+ minItems: 2 items: - - const: pciephy - - const: apps + - enum: [ pciephy, apps ] + - enum: [ apps, turnoff ] - const: turnoffI would expect to remove all these entries. I asked to keep reset-names with minIetms and maxItems. It works fine with your approach, but why having the items in multiple places?
I feel like maybe I'm getting a bit lost in the complexity. I did that ^ and it does seem to work, so V5 is coming.
