On 12/03/2025 10:39, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 09:46:41AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/03/2025 09:43, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
>>> Append the MHI register range to IPQ9574.
>>
>> Why?
>
> This is needed for ipq5332 to use ipq9574 as fallback compatible.
This sounds like you incorrect hardware description, because some other
device needs this.
Your commit msg must explain why you do things, not me keep asking the
same question over and over.
In the same time reason "ipq5332 needs it" is not correct reason.
ipq5332 is not related anyhow to this hardware. Write bindings matching
the hardware, not some other patches.
>
>>> Fixes: e0662dae178d ("dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Document the IPQ9574 PCIe controller")
>>
>> What is being fixed here?
>
> Ok, will remove this.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> New patch introduced in this patchset. MHI range was missed in the
>>> initial post
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml | 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> index 8f628939209e..77e66ab8764f 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ allOf:
>>> properties:
>>> reg:
>>> minItems: 5
>>> - maxItems: 5
>>> + maxItems: 6
>>
>> Why qcom,pcie-ipq6018 gets mhi? Nothing in commit msg mentions ipq6018.
>
> Didn't mention ipq6018 as I was under the impression that 'minItems: 5' would
> apply for ipq6018.
items=5 applies to all of them and there is nothing here claiming that
items=6 does not apply...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
