Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: qcom: Treat PHY and PERST# as optional for the new binding

[Krishna Chaitanya Chundru]

On 10/11/2025 9:39 AM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> + GPIO folks for the below API query
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 10/10/25 8:25 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > Even for the new DT binding where the PHY and PERST# properties are
> > > specified in the Root Port, both are optional. Hence, treat them as
> > > optional in the driver too.
> >
> > I suppose this makes sense if the PHY is transparent to the OS
> > or otherwise pre-programmed and PERST# is hardwired or otherwise
> > unnecessary.. both of which I suppose aren't totally impossible..
>
> PERST# is by definition an optional signal, but I'm not sure about why PHY is
> not used by the controller driver.
one case where phy is optional is in pcie tunneling through usb4, there
we don't require any phy.

- Krishna Chaitanya.
> > > If both properties are not specified, then fall back to parsing the legacy
> > > binding for backwards compatibility.
> > >
> > > Fixes: a2fbecdbbb9d ("PCI: qcom: Add support for parsing the new Root Port binding")
> > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > index 805edbbfe7eba496bc99ca82051dee43d240f359..d380981cf3ad78f549de3dc06bd2f626f8f53920 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
> > > @@ -1720,13 +1720,20 @@ static int qcom_pcie_parse_port(struct qcom_pcie *pcie, struct device_node *node
> > >   
> > >   	reset = devm_fwnode_gpiod_get(dev, of_fwnode_handle(node),
> > >   				      "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH, "PERST#");
> > > -	if (IS_ERR(reset))
> > > +	if (IS_ERR(reset) && PTR_ERR(reset) != -ENOENT)
> > >   		return PTR_ERR(reset);
> >
> > Please introduce an _optional variant instead
>
> Linus, Bartosz, are you OK with devm_fwnode_gpiod_get_optional() API? Just
> wanted to confirm before I go ahead as there are existing users checking for
> -ENOENT explicitly. Not sure if they are doing it for a reason other than the
> absence of the _optional variant or not.
>
> - Mani