>
> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It was reported to me that the star64 actually /does/ have an exposed PCIe port,
> despite the commit message there. In my original conversation with Minda,
> they said that pcie1 was available there and pcie0 was not, but the v2 patch
> didn't actually add pcie1 on the star64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I think I'll just squash this in and fixup the commit message, since the patch is still
> at the top of my branch.
>
> CC: Minda Chen <minda.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> CC: Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx
> CC: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-pine64-star64.dts | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-pine64-star64.dts
> b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-pine64-star64.dts
> index 2d41f18e0359..b720cdd15ed6 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-pine64-star64.dts
> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-pine64-star64.dts
> @@ -39,6 +39,10 @@ phy1: ethernet-phy@1 {
> };
> };
>
> +&pcie1 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> &phy0 {
> rx-internal-delay-ps = <1900>;
> tx-internal-delay-ps = <1500>;
> --
> 2.43.0
Hi Conor
The jh7110-pine64-star64.dts is in linux-next tree. I have not noticed it before.
Should I squash this to my patch? Can my dts patch be accepted in kernel 6.11? Thanks
(The same with Starfive PCIe patch set in linux-next, which will be merge in 6.11, right?)
