On 02/02/2024 09:41, Abel Vesa wrote:
On 24-02-01 20:20:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 29.01.2024 12:10, Abel Vesa wrote:
Add the compatible and the driver data for X1E80100.
Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
index 10f2d0bb86be..2a6000e457bc 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
@@ -1642,6 +1642,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_pcie_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie0", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8450-pcie1", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-sm8550", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,pcie-x1e80100", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
I swear I'm not delaying everything related to x1 on purpose..
No worries.
But..
Would a "qcom,pcie-v1.9.0" generic match string be a good idea?
Sure. So that means this would be fallback compatible for all the following platforms:
- sa8540p
- sa8775p
- sc7280
- sc8180x
- sc8280xp
- sdx55
- sm8150
- sm8250
- sm8350
- sm8450-pcie0
- sm8450-pcie1
- sm8550
- x1e80100
Will prepare a patchset.
Honestly I don't know from where comes the 1_9_0 here, I didn't find a match... none of the IP version matches.
So I consider this "1_9_0" is a software implementation, not a proper IP version so I'm against using this.
But, using close cousins as fallback that are known to share 99% of IP design is ok to me, this is why I used the sm8550 as fallback because the IP *behaves* like the one in sm8550.
Neil
Konrad
