Re: [PATCH 06/16] arm64: dts: exynos: Rename the term elbi to appl

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 02/03/2023 14:07, Shradha Todi wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski [mailto:krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 16 February 2023 16:34
>> To: Shradha Todi <shradha.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>; lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> kw@xxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>> jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx; Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx; hongxing.zhu@xxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx; jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] arm64: dts: exynos: Rename the term elbi to appl
>>
>> On 14/02/2023 13:13, Shradha Todi wrote:
>>> DT uses the name elbi in reg-names for application logic registers
>>> which is a wrong nomenclature. This patch fixes the same.
>>>
>>> This commit shouldn't be applied without changes
>>> "dt-bindings: PCI: Rename the term elbi to appl" and
>>> "PCI: samsung: Rename the term elbi to appl"
>>
>> Dependencies and patch ordering goes after '---', because there is no point
>> to store it in git history.
>>
> 
> Understood will take care in next set of patches.
> 
>> Anyway, that's an ABI break and Exynos5433 is quite stable, so without clear
>> indication of fixed bug, we should not do this.
>>
> 
> We have strong technical reason to do so.
> 
> As per DWC PCIe UM, ELBI delivers an inbound register RD/WR received by the controller to external application registers when the controller
> is expected to generate the PCIe completion of this register RD/WR.
> In this driver register space which is currently marked as ELBI, is not used for this purpose (Not sure why original author has named this set of registers as ELBI)
> So to keep this technically correct, it should be marked as application specific wrapper register space.
> We used name as "appl" taking reference from intel-gw-pcie.yaml's similar register space named as "app", whereas in nvidia,tegra194-pcie.yaml it's named "appl". 
> 
> So our argument is if a future Samsung manufactured SoC having DWC PCIe controller comes with support of real ELBI interface, we need to use the name elbi.
> We know such SoC exists but they are not yet upstreamed.
> 
> Ready to adopt the best possible suggested method to make this happen but I really think the name ELBI is misleading.

All this is rather reason for a future case. What is the problem
experienced now?

Best regards,
Krzysztof