On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:38:50AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:17:00AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 07:50:27AM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > > Add various bits of code needed to support i.MX7D variant of the IP.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -251,6 +261,10 @@ static void imx6_pcie_assert_core_reset(struct imx6_pcie *imx6_pcie)
> > > u32 val, gpr1, gpr12;
> > >
> > > switch (imx6_pcie->variant) {
> > > + case IMX7D:
> > > + reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->pciephy_reset);
> > > + reset_control_assert(imx6_pcie->apps_reset);
> > > + break;
> > > case IMX6SX:
> > > regmap_update_bits(imx6_pcie->iomuxc_gpr, IOMUXC_GPR12,
> > > IMX6SX_GPR12_PCIE_TEST_POWERDOWN,
> >
> > So the difference with i.MX7D is not really that it has a reset or not,
> > but some platforms use a reset driver and some do not. The latter should
> > be fixed.
>
> I have this patch queued for v4.11. Are these things that should be
> fixed first? If so, I can drop this.
Well, depends if you trust things will get fixed later and if the PHY
in fact should be separate as that affects the binding. It would affect
how the driver changes are done as instead of "if (IMX7D) ...", you'd
have "if (imx6_pcie->apps_reset) ..." for example. That part depends on
how much churn you want there.
Rob
