Hello Conor, On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 04:23:18PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 02:45:20PM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > > From: Parth Pancholi <parth.pancholi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add device tree bindings for TI's TUSB73x0 PCIe-to-USB 3.0 xHCI > > host controller. The controller supports software configuration > > through PCIe registers, such as controlling the PWRONx polarity > > via the USB control register (E0h). > > > > Similar generic PCIe-based bindings can be found as qcom,ath11k-pci.yaml > > as an example. > > > > Datasheet: https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tusb7320.pdf > > Signed-off-by: Parth Pancholi <parth.pancholi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../bindings/usb/ti,tusb73x0-pci.yaml | 60 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,tusb73x0-pci.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,tusb73x0-pci.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,tusb73x0-pci.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..bcb619b08ad3 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/ti,tusb73x0-pci.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/usb/ti,tusb73x0-pci.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: TUSB73x0 USB 3.0 xHCI Host Controller (PCIe) > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > + > > +description: > > + TUSB73x0 USB 3.0 xHCI Host Controller via PCIe x1 Gen2 interface. > > + The TUSB7320 supports up to two downstream ports, the TUSB7340 supports up > > + to four downstream ports. > > + > > +properties: > > + compatible: > > + const: pci104C,8241 > > + > > + reg: > > + maxItems: 1 > > + > > + ti,tusb7320-pwron-polarity-invert: > > To me, "polarity-invert" makes less sense than calling this "active-high" > making the property a flag. active-low would then be the case where the > property is not provided. Given you don't make the property required, > what you've got here is effectively a flag anyway. We had the same doubt when deciding which property name to propose, looking at the existing bindings it seemed that "polarity-invert" was more common. FTR the datasheet explicetly name the signals with a # suffix (PWRON1#, PWRON2#, ...), they are defined as active-low by default. With that said, if we prefer to have `ti,tusb7320-pwron-active-high`, I am 100% good with it. Francesco
