On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, at 15:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 4:12 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 01:19:17PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> > On 07/09/2022 19:09, Sven Peter wrote:
>> > > These chips are combined Wi-Fi/Bluetooth radios which expose a
>> > > PCI subfunction for the Bluetooth part.
>> > > They are found in Apple machines such as the x86 models with the T2
>> > > chip or the arm64 models with the M1 or M2 chips.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Sven Peter <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > > ---
>
>> > > +examples:
>> > > + - |
>> > > + pcie {
>> > > + #address-cells = <3>;
>> > > + #size-cells = <2>;
>> > > +
>> > > + bluetooth@0,1 {
>> >
>> > The unit address seems to be different than reg.
>>
>> Right, this says dev 0, func 1.
>
> Actually, the reg value of 0x100 is correct. func is bits 8-10. dev
> starts in bit 11.
Yup, if I write the example as
- |
pcie@a0000000 {
#address-cells = <3>;
#size-cells = <2>;
reg = <0xa0000000 0x1000000>;
device_type = "pci";
ranges = <0x43000000 0x6 0xa0000000 0xa0000000 0x0 0x20000000>;
bluetooth@0,1 {
compatible = "pci14e4,5f69";
reg = <0x100 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
brcm,board-type = "apple,honshu";
/* To be filled by the bootloader */
local-bd-address = [00 00 00 00 00 00];
};
};
then no warnings appear. If I instead use "bluetooth@0,2" I get the following
warning:
Warning (pci_device_reg): /example-0/pcie@a0000000/bluetooth@0,2: PCI unit address format error, expected "0,1"
Sven
