Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: PCI: qcom: Document the Hawi PCIe Controller

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 09:22:10AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 06:17:57PM -0700, Matthew Leung wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 07, 2026 at 11:01:10PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 01:10:08AM +0000, Matthew Leung wrote:
> > > > Add a dedicated schema for the PCIe controllers found on the Hawi
> > > > platform.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Leung <matthew.leung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/pci/qcom,hawi-pcie.yaml    | 204 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 204 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > +
> > > > +examples:
> > > > +  - |
> > > > +    #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,hawi-gcc.h>
> > > > +    #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> > > > +    #include <dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h>
> > > > +    #include <dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,hawi-rpmh.h>
> > > 
> > > Stop referencing clocks and interconnect header files. Replace used nocs
> > > with ephemeral values.
> > > 
> > > > +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +    soc {
> > > > +        #address-cells = <2>;
> > > > +        #size-cells = <2>;
> > > 
> > > Not looking around should be a sin. Take a look at other Qualcomm PCIe
> > > bindings. Compare them to yours. Then fix yours to follow.
> > > 
> > > Hint: the extra soc node is useless. This is just an example, so use the
> > > default, 1 cells for address and size.
> > 
> > Thank you for the feedback. This new binding follows the examples set in
> > the qcom,pcie-sm8x50 bindings and retains the same formatting (extra soc
> > node and header references).
> 
> Hmm, interesting. Then I'm a sinner :-)
> 
> I looked at msm8996, but I didn't notice that the rest of the files use
> the soc node (and match what you've sent). Please excuse me.
> 

Stop looking at MSM8996 and have some compassion for newer SoCs ;)

> > 
> > I understand the example can be simplified with your suggestions but
> > want additional confirmation that these will be the convention for new
> > bindings going forward.
> 
> At least, let's keep it for now. The other comment stands. To remove
> dependencies please use ephemeral nodes instead of depending on DT
> bindings from other subsystems.
> 

Agree. Since this series missed 7.2 merge window, the dependency won't matter
now. But for the sake of correctness, we should use ephemeral nodes going
forward.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்