Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] dt-bindings: pci/qcom,pcie: support additional MSI interrupts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 15:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 28/04/2022 13:59, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Qualcomm platforms each group of 32 MSI vectors is routed to the
> > separate GIC interrupt. Document mapping of additional interrupts.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml    | 51 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
> > index 0b69b12b849e..a8f99bca389e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
> > @@ -43,11 +43,20 @@ properties:
> >      maxItems: 5
> >
> >    interrupts:
> > -    maxItems: 1
> > +    minItems: 1
> > +    maxItems: 8
> >
> >    interrupt-names:
> > +    minItems: 1
> >      items:
> >        - const: msi
> > +      - const: msi2
> > +      - const: msi3
> > +      - const: msi4
> > +      - const: msi5
> > +      - const: msi6
> > +      - const: msi7
> > +      - const: msi8
> >
> >    # Common definitions for clocks, clock-names and reset.
> >    # Platform constraints are described later.
> > @@ -623,6 +632,46 @@ allOf:
> >          - resets
> >          - reset-names
> >
> > +    # On newer chipsets support either 1 or 8 msi interrupts
> > +    # On older chipsets it's always 1 msi interrupt
> > +  - if:
> > +      properties:
> > +        compatibles:
> > +          contains:
> > +            enum:
> > +              - qcom,pcie-msm8996
> > +              - qcom,pcie-sc7280
> > +              - qcom,pcie-sc8180x
> > +              - qcom,pcie-sdm845
> > +              - qcom,pcie-sm8150
> > +              - qcom,pcie-sm8250
> > +              - qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie0
> > +              - qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie1
> > +    then:
> > +      oneOf:
> > +        - properties:
> > +            interrupts:
> > +              minItems: 1
>
> minItems should not be needed here and in places below, because it is
> equal to maxItems.

Maybe it's a misunderstanding from my side. In the top level we have
the min = 1, max = 8.
How does that interfere with these entries? In other words, if we e.g.
omit minItems here, which setting would preveal: implicit minItems = 8
(from maxItems = 8) or minItems = 1 in the top level?

> > +              maxItems: 1
> > +            interrupt-names:
> > +              minItems: 1
> > +              maxItems: 1
> > +        - properties:
> > +            interrupts:
> > +              minItems: 8
> > +              maxItems: 8
> > +            interrupt-names:
> > +              minItems: 8
> > +              maxItems: 8
> > +    else:
> > +      properties:
> > +        interrupts:
> > +          minItems: 1
> > +          maxItems: 1
> > +        interrupt-names:
> > +          minItems: 1
> > +          maxItems: 1
> > +
> >  unevaluatedProperties: false
> >
> >  examples:
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry



[Index of Archives]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux USB]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Greybus]

  Powered by Linux