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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.112.34 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.112.34; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
Subject: Re: Query regarding the use of pcie-designware-plat.c file
To:     Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>,
        "bhelgaas@google.com" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
CC:     Gustavo Pimentel <Gustavo.Pimentel@synopsys.com>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "amurray@thegoodpenguin.co.uk" <amurray@thegoodpenguin.co.uk>,
        "jingoohan1@gmail.com" <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Krishna Thota <kthota@nvidia.com>,
        "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <34650ed1-6567-3c8f-fe29-8816f0fd74f2@nvidia.com>
 <DM5PR12MB18351813A8F94B0D18E6B505DA379@DM5PR12MB1835.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <d142b6be-f006-1edf-8780-da72ff4f20e3@nvidia.com>
 <YMCOoGzE2uGxabqF@orome.fritz.box>
From:   Vidya Sagar <vidyas@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <26a86c55-7c35-484a-2e6f-9d5c36b078f4@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 08:58:26 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YMCOoGzE2uGxabqF@orome.fritz.box>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2021 03:28:31.6972
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2e21e2c1-3005-41fc-310b-08d92fada67e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.34];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT006.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR12MB1931
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Bjorn / Lorenzo,
Could you please comment on the options proposed by Thierry?

- Vidya Sagar

On 6/9/2021 3:19 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 10:56:48AM +0530, Vidya Sagar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/9/2021 2:47 AM, Gustavo Pimentel wrote:
>>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Vidya,
>>>
>>> The pcie-designware-plat.c is the driver for the Synopsys PCIe RC IP
>>> prototype.
>> Thanks for the info Gustavo.
>> But, I don't see any DT file having only "snps,dw-pcie" compatibility
>> string. All the DT files that have "snps,dw-pci" compatibility string also
>> have their platform specific compatibility string and their respective host
>> controller drivers. Also, it is the platform specific compatibility string
>> that is used for binding purpose with their respective drivers and not the
>> "snps,dw-pcie". So, wondering when will pcie-designware-plat.c be used as
>> there is not DT file which has only "snps,dw-pcie" as the compatibility
>> string.
> 
> Sounds to me like we have two options:
> 
>    1. If there's indeed real hardware that's identified by the existing
>       "snps,dw-pcie" compatible string, then it's wrong for other devices
>       to list that in their compatible string because they are likely not
>       compatible with that (i.e. they might be from a register point of
>       view, but at least from an integration point of view they usually
>       differ).
> 
>    2. If "snps,dw-pcie" is meant to describe the fact that these are all
>       based off the same IP but may be differently integrated, then there
>       should be no driver matching on that compatible string.
> 
> Option 2 is not very robust because somebody could easily add a matching
> driver at some point in the future. Also, if we don't match on a
> compatible string there's not a lot of use in listing it in DT in the
> first place.
> 
> So I think option 1 would be preferred.
> 
> Thierry
>