Re: [RFC PATCH v12 1/5] dt-bindings: PCI: Add definition of PCIe WAKE# irq and PCI irq

[Tony Lindgren]

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> [171230 00:34]:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> * Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [171226 02:11]:
> >>> We are going to handle PCIe WAKE# pin for PCI devices in the pci core,
> >>> so add definitions of the optional PCIe WAKE# pin for PCI devices.
> >>>
> >>> Also add an definition of the optional PCI interrupt pin for PCI
> >>> devices to distinguish it from the PCIe WAKE# pin.
> >>
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci.txt
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/pci.txt
> >>> @@ -24,3 +24,13 @@ driver implementation may support the following properties:
> >>>     unsupported link speed, for instance, trying to do training for
> >>>     unsupported link speed, etc.  Must be '4' for gen4, '3' for gen3, '2'
> >>>     for gen2, and '1' for gen1. Any other values are invalid.
> >>> +
> >>> +PCI devices may support the following properties:
> >>
> >> This should say PCI ports instead of PCI devices.
> >
> > No, it is more accurate to say "PCI devices".
> >
> > Well, it actually gets somewhat confusing, because in the PCI
> > terminology a "PCI device" means a physical piece of hardware that can
> > be put into a single "slot" (think socket on a board) and may consist
> > up to 8 functional units called "functions" which are each represented
> > by a struct pci_dev.  So there may be up to 8 struct pci_dev objects
> > per "PCI device" (as per the standard language) and, BTW, drivers bind
> > to functions (via the struct pci_dev objects).
> >
> > Now, WAKE# is shared by all functions within the same "PCI device"
> > (I'm not sure if the standard specifies that directly, but at least it
> > appears to be treated as an obvious physical limitation), so it may be
> > useful to represent the "slot" or "device" level in the DT even though
> > it has no struct device based representation in the kernel.
> 
> Within the convention that bridges represent "everything below them"
> as far as WAKE# is concerned, it can say "The following properties may
> be provided for PCI bridges:" and the description below should explain
> the convention.

Sounds good to me.

Regards,

Tony