On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:26:24PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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.
I dropped it for now, not that I don't trust it will get fixed, but it
sounds like not completely trivial changes and will affect the binding
as well, so the intermediate state sounds a little messy.
Bjorn
