Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: dts: qcom: hamoa: Move PCIe PERST and Wake GPIOs to port nodes

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 07:50:50PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 11:45:42AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 05:46:18PM +0800, Ziyue Zhang wrote:
> > > Commit 960609b22be5 ("arm64: dts: qcom: hamoa: Move PHY, PERST, and Wake
> > > GPIOs to PCIe port nodes and add port Nodes for all PCIe ports") did not
> > > convert all Hamoa‑based platforms to the new method of defining PERST and
> > > Wake GPIOs in the PCIe root port nodes.
> > > 
> > > Without the change PCIe probe will fail. The probe failure happens because
> > > the PHY stays in the controller node while the PERST/Wake GPIOs were moved
> > > to the port nodes.
> > > 
> > > This fixes probe failures seen on the following platforms:
> > >  - x1-hp-omnibook-x14
> > >  - x1-microsoft-denali
> > >  - x1e80100-lenovo-yoga-slim7x
> > >  - x1e80100-medion-sprchrgd-14-s1
> > >  - x1p42100-lenovo-thinkbook-16
> > >  - x1-asus-zenbook-a14
> > >  - x1-crd
> > >  - x1-dell-thena
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 960609b22be5 ("arm64: dts: qcom: hamoa: Move PHY, PERST, and Wake GPIOs to PCIe port nodes and add port Nodes for all PCIe ports")
> > 
> > Are you saying that DTs in the field broke because of some kernel
> > change?  That's not supposed to happen.  Even though PHY, PERST, and
> > Wake GPIOs should be described in Root Port nodes instead of the Root
> > Complex node in *future* DTs, the kernel is still supposed to accept
> > the old style with them described in the Root Complex node.
> > 
> 
> This is not related to the driver change. The driver correctly parses all Root
> Port properties either in the Root Complex node (old binding) or Root Port node
> (new binding). But commit 960609b22be5, left converting mentioned board DTS to
> the new binding, leaving those affected platforms in a half baked state i.e.,
> some properties in RC node and some in Root Port node. Driver cannot parse such
> combinations, so it fails correctly so.
> 

Are you saying that above listed machines has broken PCIe support in
v7.0-rc?

It seems this is a (partial) revert of 960609b22be5, is this actually
fixing that change, or is it only applicable once some other changes are
applied?

Where should this be merged?

Regards,
Bjorn

> - Mani
> 
> -- 
> மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்