On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:41:03AM +0200, Abel Vesa wrote:
> On 24-02-01 20:20:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 29.01.2024 12:10, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > Add the compatible and the driver data for X1E80100.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > index 10f2d0bb86be..2a6000e457bc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > @@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_pcie_match[] = {
> > > { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie0", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> > > { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie1", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> > > { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8550", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> > > + { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-x1e80100", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> >
> > I swear I'm not delaying everything related to x1 on purpose..
> >
>
> No worries.
>
> > But..
> >
> > Would a "qcom,pcie-v1.9.0" generic match string be a good idea?
>
> Sure. So that means this would be fallback compatible for all the following platforms:
>
> - sa8540p
> - sa8775p
> - sc7280
> - sc8180x
> - sc8280xp
> - sdx55
> - sm8150
> - sm8250
> - sm8350
> - sm8450-pcie0
> - sm8450-pcie1
> - sm8550
> - x1e80100
>
> Will prepare a patchset.
>
NO. Fallback should be based on the base SoC for this platform.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
