Am Mittwoch, den 28.11.2018, 10:55 +0000 schrieb Leonard Crestez:
> On 11/27/18 11:15 PM, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:46 AM Leonard Crestez <leonard.cres...@nxp.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 11/27/18 12:06 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > > > Am Montag, den 26.11.2018, 10:24 -0800 schrieb Andrey Smirnov:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:49 AM Leonard Crestez
> > > > > <leonard.cres...@nxp.com> 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.
> > >
> >
> > Playing devil's advocate for a bit:
> >
> > More specifically, currently the following per-controller bits need to
> > be configured:
> >
> > - Location of the "device type" field within GPR12
> > - GPR register to use to control PCIn_CLKREQ_B_OVERRIDE_EN and
> > PCIn_CLKREQ_B_OVERRIDE_EN (GPR14 vs GPR16)
> > - Now that Philip spoke against PCIE_CTRL_APPS_CLK_REQ being exposed
> > via reset controller driver, we need to know which SRC register to use
> > to control that bit (SRC_PCIEPHY_RCR vs. SRC_PCIE2_RCR)
>
> I looked a bit through bindings and there some instances of syscon-$BLH
> properties which include detailed offsets or bitmasks for $BLAH relative
> to the target syscon node.
>
> If you're going the route of adding properties points to IOMUXC/SRC bits
> it would sense to ensure that they're also usable on other SOCs,
> otherwise you're just making 8mq more complicated. But that's hard.
>
> But I think it's easier to deal with such SOC-specific details behind a
> compat string. Maybe the DT list has some opinion on this?
I agree with this. The number of bits and offsets is too large to keep
it in DT properties, without running into backwards compat issues later
on.
> I wonder if of_alias_get_id would be a reasonable way to distinguish
> between pcie0 and pcie1 instead of adding an ctrl-id property?
No, the alias is a arbitrary number that can change from board to
board. It can, but doesn't need to, correspond to any real hardware ID.
If we need a hardware controller ID, then there is no way around adding
a property to the PCIe controller node for this.
Regards,
Lucas
