Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: monaco-evk: Describe the PCIe M.2 Key E connector

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 10/22/26 3:08 PM, Loic Poulain wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 11:34 AM Konrad Dybcio
> <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/26 10:13 AM, Loic Poulain wrote:
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 2:38 PM Konrad Dybcio
>>> <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> We are adding M.2 Key E connector support for monaco-evk [2]. Konrad
>>>>>> suggested moving the port/endpoint anchor nodes to the SoC DTSI
>>>>>> (monaco.dtsi) for clean DTS layering, so that board files only need to
>>>>>> fill in remote-endpoint for boards that actually have an M.2 connector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This means, the dummy port/endpoint node will always be present even when the
>>>>> M.2 connector is not used. I don't see a compelling reason to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really see a compelling reason to defer re-defining them to each
>>>> device DT either..
>>>
>>> Adding an empty port/endpoint at the SoC level is problematic for
>>> uart, port is not always expected, this depends if the uart is exposed
>>> through a connector or to an onboard device. So we may end with an
>>> unconnected endpoint but still have a bluetooth subnode, which can be
>>> a bit confusing... Also why adding a port/endpoint only for a specific
>>> uart in the dts, and not for the others? This is a board/SoC level
>>> choice to use a specific uart for M2 or not.
>>
>> From my perspective it's removing boilerplate. Currently all USB and
>> PCIe hosts already define their ports and endpoints in the SoC DTSI
>> and if they're unconnected, then simply nothing happens.
>>
>> Both 'ports' and 'endpoints' are an abstract property that signify
>> 'X can be related to Y' and I don't see how that's a problem here given
>> UART is very much expected to be connected "somewhere" (with the
>> "somewhere" perhaps being external/a pin header)
> 
> Yes, but in the UART case, where the connection can be represented in
> different ways, we can end up with devices being described as both
> unconnected (no remote endpoint) and connected (via a child device).
> We can probably live with that, but if we go in this direction, we
> should consider adding a port/endpoint definition for every UART
> instance in the DTSI for consistency. The same would apply to I2C once
> endpoint support is available there as well.

Guess so!

Konrad