Hi Lucas: Thanks for your quickly review-comments. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucas Stach [mailto:l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:36 PM > To: Zhu Richard-R65037 > Cc: linux-pci-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] PCI: imx6: enable pcie on imx6qdl sabresd and > sabreauto > > Am Montag, den 22.09.2014, 17:01 +0800 schrieb Richard Zhu: > > - enable pcie support on imx6qdl sabresd and asbreauto boards. > > - sabresd board has the pcie power on and reset gpios, but sabreauto > > doesn't have these two gpios. > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Zhu <r65037@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi | 4 ++++ > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabresd.dtsi | 2 ++ > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi > > index 009abd6..d6040a5 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabreauto.dtsi > > @@ -410,6 +410,10 @@ > > }; > > }; > > > > +&pcie { > > + status = "okay"; > > +}; > > + > > &pwm3 { > > pinctrl-names = "default"; > > pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_pwm3>; > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabresd.dtsi > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabresd.dtsi > > index ec43dde..c2d3224 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabresd.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-sabresd.dtsi > > @@ -396,6 +396,7 @@ > > > > pinctrl_pcie: pciegrp { > > fsl,pins = < > > + MX6QDL_PAD_EIM_D19__GPIO3_IO19 0x80000000 > > MX6QDL_PAD_GPIO_17__GPIO7_IO12 0x80000000 > > >; > > }; > > @@ -502,6 +503,7 @@ > > &pcie { > > pinctrl-names = "default"; > > pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_pcie>; > > + power-on-gpio = <&gpio3 19 0>; > > reset-gpio = <&gpio7 12 0>; > > status = "okay"; > > }; > > This hunk is wrong. There is no "power-on-gpio" in the binding anymore. > Also there is already a change in Shawns tree to model this as a always-on > regulator. If we really want to control pci bus power this needs to be done > through this regulator, not some arbitrary gpio hack. > > Also I don't see why this would be stable material. [Richard] Yes, it is. The "power-on-gpio" is not required anymore, would be removed. Stable kernel mail-list would be removed too. > > Regards, > Lucas > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Lucas Stach | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���"�)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
