Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V5 10/16] dt-bindings: PCI: tegra: Add device tree support for T194 | From | Vidya Sagar <> | Date | Tue, 14 May 2019 11:55:48 +0530 |
| |
On 5/13/2019 8:50 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:20 AM Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/26/2019 9:13 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:49:58AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote: >>>> Add support for Tegra194 PCIe controllers. These controllers are based >>>> on Synopsys DesignWare core IP. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com> >>>> --- > >>>> +- nvidia,bpmp: Must contain a phandle to BPMP controller node. >>>> +- nvidia,controller-id : Controller specific ID >>>> + 0: C0 >>>> + 1: C1 >>>> + 2: C2 >>>> + 3: C3 >>>> + 4: C4 >>>> + 5: C5 >>> >>> We don't normal put device indexes into DT. Why do you need this. >>> Perhaps for accessing the BPMP? If so, make nvidia,bpmp a phandle+cell. >> BPMP needs to know the controller number to enable it hence it needs to be >> passed to BPMP. Just for accessing BPMP, I already added 'nvidia,bpmp' property. > > Then make nvidia,bpmp take the phandle and this number. Ok. I'll take care of it in next patch series.
> > >>>> +- nvidia,disable-aspm-states: Controls advertisement of ASPM states >>>> + bit-0 to '1': Disables advertisement of ASPM-L0s >>>> + bit-1 to '1': Disables advertisement of ASPM-L1. This also disables >>>> + advertisement of ASPM-L1.1 and ASPM-L1.2 >>>> + bit-2 to '1': Disables advertisement of ASPM-L1.1 >>>> + bit-3 to '1': Disables advertisement of ASPM-L1.2 >>> >>> Can't this cover what 'supports-clkreq' does? >> Well, they are related partially. i.e. if a platform doesn't have 'supports-clkreq' set, >> then, by definition, it can't advertise support for ASPM L1.1 and L1.2 states. But, ASPM-L0s >> and ASPM-L1 states don't depend on 'supports-clkreq' property. >> Having this property gives more granularity as to support for which particular ASPM state >> shouldn't be advertised by the root port. > > Okay, then it should be a common property then. I'm planning to remove this given we have sysfs way (Heiner's patch series @ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-pci/list/?series=107392 to control which ASPM states can be enabled run time. In case if that is not going to work for a given use case, I'll push patches separately for controlling ASPM states advertisement/working.
> > Rob >
| |