Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] dt-bindings: PCI: Add Broadcom STB 7712 SOC, update maintainer

[Jim Quinlan]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:58 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 05/07/2024 22:02, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 2:40 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/07/2024 20:02, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> >>> - Update maintainer; Nicolas hasn't been active and it
> >>>   makes more sense to have a Broadcom maintainer
> >>> - Add a driver compatible string for the new STB SOC 7712
> >>
> >> You meant device? Bindings are for hardware.
> >>
> >>> - Add two new resets for the 7712: "bridge", for the
> >>>   the bridge between the PCIe core and the memory bus;
> >>>   "swinit", the PCIe core reset.
> >>> - Order the compatible strings alphabetically
> >>> - Restructure the reset controllers so that the definitions
> >>>   appear first before any rules that govern them.
> >>
> >> Please split cleanups from new device support.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml           | 44 +++++++++++++++----
> >>>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> >>> index 11f8ea33240c..a070f35d28d7 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> >>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >>>  title: Brcmstb PCIe Host Controller
> >>>
> >>>  maintainers:
> >>> -  - Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@xxxxxxx>
> >>> +  - Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>  properties:
> >>>    compatible:
> >>> @@ -16,11 +16,12 @@ properties:
> >>>            - brcm,bcm2711-pcie # The Raspberry Pi 4
> >>>            - brcm,bcm4908-pcie
> >>>            - brcm,bcm7211-pcie # Broadcom STB version of RPi4
> >>> -          - brcm,bcm7278-pcie # Broadcom 7278 Arm
> >>>            - brcm,bcm7216-pcie # Broadcom 7216 Arm
> >>> -          - brcm,bcm7445-pcie # Broadcom 7445 Arm
> >>> +          - brcm,bcm7278-pcie # Broadcom 7278 Arm
> >>>            - brcm,bcm7425-pcie # Broadcom 7425 MIPs
> >>>            - brcm,bcm7435-pcie # Broadcom 7435 MIPs
> >>> +          - brcm,bcm7445-pcie # Broadcom 7445 Arm
> >>> +          - brcm,bcm7712-pcie # STB sibling SOC of Raspberry Pi 5
> >>>
> >>>    reg:
> >>>      maxItems: 1
> >>> @@ -95,6 +96,20 @@ properties:
> >>>        minItems: 1
> >>>        maxItems: 3
> >>>
> >>> +  resets:
> >>> +    items:
> >>> +      - description: reset for phy calibration
> >>> +      - description: reset for PCIe/CPU bus bridge
> >>> +      - description: reset for soft PCIe core reset
> >>> +      - description: reset for PERST# PCIe signal
> >>
> >> This won't work and I doubt you tested your code. You miss minItems.
> >
> > I did test my code and there were no errors.  I perform the following test:
> >
> > make ARCH=arm64 dt_binding_check DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m
> > DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/brcm,stb-pcie.yaml
> >
> > Is this incorrect?
>
> That's correct and you are right - it passes the checks. Recent dtschema
> changed the logic behind this. I am not sure if the new approach will
> stay, I would find explicit minItems here more obvious and readable, so:
> resets:
>   minItems: 1
>   items:
>     - .........
>     - .........
>     - .........
>     - .........
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +  reset-names:
> >>> +    items:
> >>> +      - const: rescal
> >>> +      - const: bridge
> >>> +      - const: swinit
> >>> +      - const: perst
> >>
> >> This does not match what you have in conditional, so just keep min and
> >> max Items here.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean.  One chips uses a single reset, another
> > chip uses a different single reset,
> > and the third (7712) uses three of the four resets.
>
> Your conditional in allOf:if:then has different order.
Different order then what, and ordering by chip or by reset name?

>
> >
> > I was instructed to separate the descriptions from the rules, or at
> > least that's what I thought I was asked.
> >>
> >>
> >>> +
> >>>  required:
> >>>    - compatible
> >>>    - reg
> >>> @@ -118,13 +133,10 @@ allOf:
> >>>      then:
> >>>        properties:
> >>>          resets:
> >>> -          items:
> >>> -            - description: reset controller handling the PERST# signal
> >>> -
> >>> +          minItems: 1
> >>
> >> maxItems instead. Why three resets should be valid?
> >
> > See above.  Note that I was just instructed to separate the rules from
> > the descriptions.
> > In doing so I placed all of the reset descripts on the top and then
> > the rules below.
> > There are four possible resets but no single chip uses all of them and
> > three chips
> > use one or three of them.
> >
> > Please advise.
>
> I don't understand that explanation. Why this particular variant works
> with 1, 2, 3 or 4 resets in the same time?

What do you mean in the "same time"?  The resets are just not present
in most of our PCIe HW.  In two chips there is only 1 reset in the HW,
and in the 7712 there are 3 resets in the HW.   You asked me to
describe all of the resets first at the top level and I have done
that.  But none of our chips ever use all four.

Regards,
Jim Quinlan
Broadcom STB/CM


>
> Constraints are supposed to be precise / exact.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature