On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:32 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:26:51PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:47 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > No great problem with having these in the controller node (assming it > > > accurately describes the hardware) but I do think we ought to also be > > > able to describe these per slot. > > > Can you explain what you think that would look like in the DT? > > I *think* that's just some properties on the nodes for the endpoints, > note that the driver could just ignore them for now. Not sure where or > if we document any extensions but child nodes are in section 4 of the > v2.1 PCI bus binding. Hi Mark, I'm a little confused -- here is how I remember the chronology of the "DT bindings" commit reviews, please correct me if I'm wrong: o JimQ submitted a pullreq for using voltage regulators in the same style as the existing "rockport" PCIe driver. o After some deliberation, RobH preferred that the voltage regulators should go into the PCIe subnode device's DT node. o JimQ put the voltage regulators in the subnode device's DT node. o MarkB didn't like the fact that the code did a global search for the regulator since it could not provide the owning struct device* handle. o RobH relented, and said that if it is just two specific and standard voltage regulators, perhaps they can go in the parent DT node after all. o JimQ put the regulators back in the PCIe node. o MarkB now wants the regulators to go back into the child node again? Folks, please advise. Regards, Jim Quinlan Broadcom STB
