On 24-02-02 14:18:06, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:41:03AM +0200, 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.
> >
>
> NO. Fallback should be based on the base SoC for this platform.
Right, so since the SM8250 is the one that has the core version 1.9.0,
should we just the sm8550 compatible as fallback for all other ones.
Yes, I know that there is SM8150, which has core version 1.5.0, but it
is still 1.9.0 compatible.
Or maybe we should rename the config to 1_5_0 and have the sm8150
compatible as fallback for all these platforms.
>
> - Mani
>
> --
> மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
