On 06/09/2024 12:43, Havalige, Thippeswamy wrote: > Hi Krzysztof > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 3:26 PM >> To: Havalige, Thippeswamy <thippeswamy.havalige@xxxxxxx>; >> manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- >> pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: Gogada, Bharat Kumar <bharat.kumar.gogada@xxxxxxx>; Simek, >> Michal <michal.simek@xxxxxxx>; lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx; kw@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: PCI: xilinx-cpm: Add compatible string >> for CPM5 controller-1. >> >> On 06/09/2024 11:31, Thippeswamy Havalige wrote: >>> The Xilinx Versal premium series has CPM5 block which supports two >>> typeA Root Port controller functionality at Gen5 speed. >>> >>> Add compatible string to distinguish between two CPM5 rootport >> controller1. >> >> Subjects NEVER end with full stops. > Thanks, Update in the next patch series. >>> >>> Error interrupt register and bits for both the controllers are at >>> different. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thippeswamy Havalige <thippesw@xxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git >>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml >>> index 989fb0fa2577..b63a759ec2d7 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/xilinx-versal-cpm.yaml >>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ properties: >>> enum: >>> - xlnx,versal-cpm-host-1.00 >>> - xlnx,versal-cpm5-host >>> + - xlnx,versal-cpm5-host1 >> >> That's poor naming. "-1.00" and now "1". Get your naming reasonable... > Here 1.00 represents the IP versioning and host1 represents controller-1. I understand but you repeating the same is not helping. Make it better and next time upstream "host1-1" compatible. Number of ports, BTW, comes from ports, right? So no need for the compatible. Best regards, Krzysztof
