Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] PCI/portdrv: add mechanism to turn on subdev regulators

[Pali Rohár]

On Thursday 18 November 2021 10:36:00 Jim Quinlan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:45 AM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 17 November 2021 10:14:19 Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 3:53 PM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I was looking at it... main power (12V/3.3V) and AUX power (3.3V)
> > > > needs to be supplied at the "correct" time during establishing link
> > > > procedure. I wrote it in my RFC email:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20211022183808.jdeo7vntnagqkg7g@pali/
> > > Hello Pali,
> > >
> > > I really like your proposal although I would like to get my patchset
> > > first :-) :-)
> > >
> > > Suppose you came up with a patchset for your ideas-- would that include
> > > changes to existing RC drivers to use the proposed framework?  If so,
> > > I am wary that it would
> > > break at least a few of them.  Or would you just present the framework
> > > and allow the
> > > RC drivers' authors to opt-in, one by one?
> >
> > My idea is to add new "framework" to allow drivers implement new
> > callbacks for this "framework". There would be no change in drivers
> > which do not provide these callbacks to ensure that nothing is going to
> > be broken. I'm planning to implement these callbacks only for RC drivers
> > for which I have hardware and can properly test to not introduce any
> > regression. For other existing RC drivers it is up to other authors +
> > testers. But to decrease future maintenance cost of all RC drivers I
> > expect that new drivers would not implement any ad-hoc solution in their
> > "probe" function and instead implement these new callbacks. That is my
> > idea.
> >
> > > At any rate, if you want someone to test some of your ideas I can work
> > > with you.
> >
> > Perfect! If you have any concerns or you see any issues, please reply
> > that my RFC email. So I can collect feedback.
> >
> > Also I sent draft for updating DTS schema for PCIe devices:
> > https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/pull/64
> 
> Hi Pali,
> I don't see any mention or placement of the regulator nodes for power;

I put in above pull request draft only existing attributes (from
pci.txt), I have not introduce anything new yet.

> do you agree with where
> I proposed we place them, ie in the first bridge under the root-complex,  e.g.
> 
>             pcie0: pcie@7d500000 {                                /*
> root complex */
>                     compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-pcie";
>                     reg = <0x0 0x7d500000 0x9310>;
> 
>                     /* PCIe bridge */
>                     pci@0,0 {
>                             #address-cells = <3>;
>                             #size-cells = <2>;
>                             reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
>                             compatible = "pciclass,0604";
>                             device_type = "pci";
>                             vpcie3v3-supply = <&vreg7>;     /*
> <------------- HERE  */

This node 'pci@0,0' describes PCIe Root Port. So yes, it is place where
power regulators belongs. I agree with you.

(Note: I would suggest to use /* PCIe Root Port */ comment instead of
/* PCIe bridge */. As PCIe bridge is ambiguous name which could mean
also other devices.)

>                             ranges;
> 
>                             pci-ep@0,0 {        /* PCIe endpoint */
>                                     assigned-addresses =
>                                         <0x82010000 0x0 0xf8000000 0x6
> 0x00000000 0x0 0x2000>;
>                                     reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x0>;
>                                     compatible = "pci14e4,1688";
>                                     #address-cells = <3>;
>                                     #size-cells = <2>;
> 
>                                     ranges;
>                             };
>                     };
>             };
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Jim