Re: [PATCH 3/4] PCI: qcom: Add Support for Eliza

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 01:03:09PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/05/2026 12:48, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 11:34:30AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 22/05/2026 11:31, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 5/22/2026 12:21 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 07:35:31PM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
> >>>>> Add support for Eliza soc, which has two PCIe controllers capable
> >>>>> of 8GT/s X1 and 8GT/s X2, using the cfg_1_9_0 configuration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <krishna.chundru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 1 +
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> >>>>> index af6bf5cce65b..40f0a5f247eb 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> >>>>> @@ -2123,6 +2123,7 @@ static int qcom_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
> >>>>>  static const struct of_device_id qcom_pcie_match[] = {
> >>>>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-apq8064", .data = &cfg_2_1_0 },
> >>>>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-apq8084", .data = &cfg_1_0_0 },
> >>>>> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-eliza", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
> >>>> So compatible with sm8550. Why isn't this explained in commit msg of
> >>>> the binding?
> >>> No, PCIe controller is not compatible with sm8550, we are just re using the boot
> >>> sequence used by the sm8550.
> >>
> >> Then with what it is compatible? You cannot use someone else's match
> >> data and claim they are not compatible. This is contradictory to itself.
> >>
> > 
> > 'cfg_1_9_0' is the match data of base PCIe IP v1.9.0, not just SM8550. The 'ops'
> > callbacks for 'cfg_1_9_0' are compatible with PCIe IPs used in many SoCs such as
> > SM8550, SM8450, SM8350, SM8250, SM8150, SDX55, SC8180X, and SC7280. And Eliza is
> > also falling into the same category.
> > 
> And if all implementations uses the same SW interface, why are you
> claiming these are not compatible?
> 

I didn't 'claim' these SoCs are not compatible. In fact, I explicitly said that
Eliza is compatible with the base IP v1.9.0. But the resources such as clocks,
regulators might be different between them, though the SWI is compatible. So
Eliza deserves a new compatible.

Also, the direct baseline of Eliza is not supported in upstream. So by
'compatible', if you are referring to 'fallback' in DT, then using SM8750 would
be appropriate.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்