Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Add IPQ9574 PCIe controller

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 11/04/2024 20:00, mr.nuke.me@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/9/24 15:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/04/2024 21:08, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>> IPQ9574 has PCIe controllers which are almost identical to IPQ6018.
>>> The only difference is that the "iface" clock is not required.
>>> Document this difference along with the compatible string.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml    | 34 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> index cf9a6910b542..1915bea580d3 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,pcie.yaml
>>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ properties:
>>>             - qcom,pcie-ipq8064-v2
>>>             - qcom,pcie-ipq8074
>>>             - qcom,pcie-ipq8074-gen3
>>> +          - qcom,pcie-ipq9574
>>>             - qcom,pcie-msm8996
>>>             - qcom,pcie-qcs404
>>>             - qcom,pcie-sdm845
>>> @@ -397,6 +398,37 @@ allOf:
>>>               - const: axi_m_sticky # AXI Master Sticky reset
>>>               - const: axi_s_sticky # AXI Slave Sticky reset
>>>   
>>
>> Where do you constrain the reg?
> 
> I didn't realize that was also required -- the make checks should have 
> picked this up too? I might be invoking the tests incorrectly.
> 
> I should add the ipq9574 in the same list as ipq8074-gen3 and ipq6018, 
> correct?

If you add new variant, look at existing compatibles where they appear.
If there is a if: constraining compatibles, then it's a hint you should
do the same for your device. So yes, you must constrain all properties
which are made flexible in top-level properties.

Best regards,
Krzysztof