Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: imx: Add support for i.MX8MQ

[Lucas Stach]

Am Dienstag, den 27.11.2018, 13:14 -0800 schrieb Andrey Smirnov:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 2:46 AM Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On 11/27/18 12:06 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > > Hi Andrey,
> > > 
> > > Am Montag, den 26.11.2018, 10:24 -0800 schrieb Andrey Smirnov:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:49 AM Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx> 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)
> > > > > > -ÂÂÂÂÂcase IMX7D:
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂcase IMX8MQ:
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂif (of_property_read_u32(node, "fsl,iomux-gpr1x",
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ&imx6_pcie->gpr1x)) {
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂdev_err(dev, "Failed to get GPR1x address\n");
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂreturn -EINVAL;
> > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ}
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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)

If if we need a lot of different GPR offsets, I revise my earlier
opinion. We certainly don't want lots of bit offsets and masks in the
DT. The whole GPR thing is ugly, but I would rather hide this in the
driver code, keyed by compatible and a controller id property, where we
can change things without any worries about DT backward compatibility.

Regards,
Lucas