On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 2:22 AM Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021-08-26 02:55, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > [+cc linux-pci; patches to drivers/pci/ should always be cc'd there] > > > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 07:30:09PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> Quoting Prasad Malisetty (2021-08-24 01:10:48) > >> > On 2021-08-17 22:56, Prasad Malisetty wrote: > >> > > On 2021-08-10 09:38, Prasad Malisetty wrote: > >> > >> On the SC7280, By default the clock source for pcie_1_pipe is > >> > >> TCXO for gdsc enable. But after the PHY is initialized, the clock > >> > >> source must be switched to gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk from TCXO. > >> > >> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Prasad Malisetty <pmaliset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > >> > >> > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c > >> > >> b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c > >> > >> index 8a7a300..39e3b21 100644 > >> > >> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c > >> > >> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c > >> > >> @@ -166,6 +166,8 @@ struct qcom_pcie_resources_2_7_0 { > >> > >> struct regulator_bulk_data supplies[2]; > >> > >> struct reset_control *pci_reset; > >> > >> struct clk *pipe_clk; > >> > >> + struct clk *gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src; > >> > >> + struct clk *phy_pipe_clk; > >> > >> }; > >> > >> > >> > >> union qcom_pcie_resources { > >> > >> @@ -1167,6 +1169,16 @@ static int qcom_pcie_get_resources_2_7_0(struct > >> > >> qcom_pcie *pcie) > >> > >> if (ret < 0) > >> > >> return ret; > >> > >> > >> > >> + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "qcom,pcie-sc7280")) { > >> > >> + res->gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src = devm_clk_get(dev, "pipe_mux"); > >> > >> + if (IS_ERR(res->gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src)) > >> > >> + return PTR_ERR(res->gcc_pcie_1_pipe_clk_src); > >> > >> + > >> > >> + res->phy_pipe_clk = devm_clk_get(dev, "phy_pipe"); > >> > >> + if (IS_ERR(res->phy_pipe_clk)) > >> > >> + return PTR_ERR(res->phy_pipe_clk); > >> > >> + } > >> > > > >> > > I would like to check is there any other better approach instead of > >> > > compatible method here as well or is it fine to use compatible method. > >> > >> I'd prefer the compatible method. If nobody is responding then it's > >> best > >> to just resend the patches with the approach you prefer instead of > >> waiting for someone to respond to a review comment. > > > > I'm missing some context here, so I'm not exactly sure what your > > question is, Prasad, but IMO drivers generally should not need to use > > of_device_is_compatible() if they've already called > > of_device_get_match_data() (as qcom_pcie_probe() has). > > > > of_device_is_compatible() does basically the same work of looking for > > a match in qcom_pcie_match[] that of_device_get_match_data() does, so > > it seems pointless to repeat it. +1 > > I am a little confused because while [1] adds "qcom,pcie-sc7280" to > > qcom,pcie.txt, I don't see a patch that adds it to qcom_pcie_match[]. Either that's missing or there's a fallback to 8250 that's not documented. > > > > Bjorn > > > Hi Bjorn, > > I agree on your point, but the main reason is to use compatible in > get_resources_2_7_0 is same hardware version. For SM8250 & SC7280 > platforms, the hw version is same. Since we can't have a separate ops > for SC7280, we are using compatible method in get_resources_2_7_0 to > differentiate SM8250 and SC7280. Then fix the match data to be not just ops, but ops and the flag you need here. Rob