Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210401212148.47033-1-jim2101024@gmail.com> <20210401212148.47033-3-jim2101024@gmail.com>
 <20210406164708.GM6443@sirena.org.uk> <CANCKTBsiujTkOdh60etBqF_hE8exg6m9TDxkGHVVAGVS2SFCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210406173211.GP6443@sirena.org.uk> <CANCKTBv63b4bGepZbDp1wmFrOeddiDikoXbheMjHhbguAbR2sA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210408162016.GA1556444@robh.at.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210408162016.GA1556444@robh.at.kernel.org>
From:   Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 12:58:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CANCKTBv_g9FPcBCOi-JxEDrrQWFhNcdsfDATFBydwnLiebj-HA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] dt-bindings: PCI: Add bindings for Brcmstb
 endpoint device voltage regulators
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Jim Quinlan <james.quinlan@broadcom.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 12:20 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:25:49PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:32 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:26:51PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:47 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > No great problem with having these in the controller node (assming it
> > > > > accurately describes the hardware) but I do think we ought to also be
> > > > > able to describe these per slot.
>
> PCIe is effectively point to point, so there's only 1 slot unless
> there's a PCIe switch in the middle. If that's the case, then it's all
> more complicated.
>
> > > > Can you explain what you think that would look like in the DT?
> > >
> > > I *think* that's just some properties on the nodes for the endpoints,
> > > note that the driver could just ignore them for now.  Not sure where or
> > > if we document any extensions but child nodes are in section 4 of the
> > > v2.1 PCI bus binding.
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > I'm a little confused -- here is how I remember the chronology of the
> > "DT bindings" commit reviews, please correct me if I'm wrong:
> >
> > o JimQ submitted a pullreq for using voltage regulators in the same
> > style as the existing "rockport" PCIe driver.
> > o After some deliberation, RobH preferred that the voltage regulators
> > should go into the PCIe subnode device's DT node.
>
> IIRC, that's because you said there isn't a standard slot.
Admittedly, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "standard slot".
Our PCIIe HW does not support  hotplug or have a presence bit or
anything like that.  Our root complex has one port; it can only
directly connect to a single switch or endpoint. This connection shows
up as slot0.  The voltage regulator(s) involved depend on a GPIO that
turns the power  on/off for the connected device/chip.  The gpio pin
can vary from board to board but this is easily handled in our DT.
Some boards have regulators that are always on and not associated with
a GPIO pin -- these have no representation in our DT.

Regards,
Jim


>
> > o JimQ put the voltage regulators in the subnode device's DT node.
> > o MarkB didn't like the fact that the code did a global search for the
> > regulator since it could not provide the owning struct device* handle.
> > o RobH relented, and said that if it is just two specific and standard
> > voltage regulators, perhaps they can go in the parent DT node after
> > all.
> > o JimQ put the regulators back in the PCIe node.
> > o MarkB now wants the regulators to go back into the child node again?
> >
> > Folks, please advise.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim Quinlan
> > Broadcom STB