On 24-02-02 14:11:57, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 09:13:25AM +0100, neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 01/02/2024 20:20, 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..
> > >
> > > But..
> > >
> > > Would a "qcom,pcie-v1.9.0" generic match string be a good idea?
> >
> > Yes as fallback, this is why I used qcom,pcie-sm8550 as fallback for SM8650.
> >
>
> Right. Fallback should be used here also.
So after digging a bit more ...
Nope. Fallback approach doesn't work for X1E80100.
The ddrss_sf_qtb clock is, on this platform, under RPMH control,
and therefore not registered by the GCC. This implies this clock cannot
be provided to the pcie controller node in DT, which implies the
bindings are different when compared to sm8550. So dedicated compatible
is needed.
So this patchset should remain as is.
>
> - Mani
>
> --
> மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
