On 02/03/2023 14:07, Shradha Todi wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski [mailto:krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: 16 February 2023 16:34 >> To: Shradha Todi <shradha.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>; lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx; >> kw@xxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; >> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx; >> jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx; Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx; hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx; jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxx; >> pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] arm64: dts: exynos: Rename the term elbi to appl >> >> On 14/02/2023 13:13, Shradha Todi wrote: >>> DT uses the name elbi in reg-names for application logic registers >>> which is a wrong nomenclature. This patch fixes the same. >>> >>> This commit shouldn't be applied without changes >>> "dt-bindings: PCI: Rename the term elbi to appl" and >>> "PCI: samsung: Rename the term elbi to appl" >> >> Dependencies and patch ordering goes after '---', because there is no point >> to store it in git history. >> > > Understood will take care in next set of patches. > >> Anyway, that's an ABI break and Exynos5433 is quite stable, so without clear >> indication of fixed bug, we should not do this. >> > > We have strong technical reason to do so. > > As per DWC PCIe UM, ELBI delivers an inbound register RD/WR received by the controller to external application registers when the controller > is expected to generate the PCIe completion of this register RD/WR. > In this driver register space which is currently marked as ELBI, is not used for this purpose (Not sure why original author has named this set of registers as ELBI) > So to keep this technically correct, it should be marked as application specific wrapper register space. > We used name as "appl" taking reference from intel-gw-pcie.yaml's similar register space named as "app", whereas in nvidia,tegra194-pcie.yaml it's named "appl". > > So our argument is if a future Samsung manufactured SoC having DWC PCIe controller comes with support of real ELBI interface, we need to use the name elbi. > We know such SoC exists but they are not yet upstreamed. > > Ready to adopt the best possible suggested method to make this happen but I really think the name ELBI is misleading. All this is rather reason for a future case. What is the problem experienced now? Best regards, Krzysztof
