On 11/27/18 12:06 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> Am Montag, den 26.11.2018, 10:24 -0800 schrieb Andrey Smirnov:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:49 AM Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2018-11-17 at 10:12 -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>>>> @@ -921,7 +1004,28 @@ static int imx6_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> - case IMX7D:
>>>> + case IMX8MQ:
>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "fsl,iomux-gpr1x",
>>>> + &imx6_pcie->gpr1x)) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get GPR1x address\n");
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> This is for distinguishing multiple controllers on the SOC but other
>>> registers and bits might differ. Isn't it preferable to have a property
>>> for controller id instead of adding many registers to DT?
>>
>> I liked encoding necessary info in DT directly slightly better than
>> encoding abstract ID and then decoding it further in the driver code.
>> OTOH, I am not really attached to that path. Lucas, can you comment on
>> this please?
>
> Yes, after rereading the patch with this in mind I agree that having
> the GPR offset on DT directly is IMO the better approach than an
> abstract ID.
But it's not a single offset, for example the device_type (EP/RC) has
bits for the two controllers side-by-side in GPR12.
Adding a "ctrl-id" property would fully describe the hardware from the
start. If we add per-register information instead then when other
registers are used we'll get DT compatibility headaches.
It's worth noting that 8qm/8qxp also have multiple controllers with a
different set of bits placed differently in iomuxc.
