Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB03.amd.com; pr=C
Message-ID: <6fc414de-2693-87b6-719d-e3b168a570e4@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 08:50:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 2/5] PCI: Create device tree node for bridge
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <max.zhen@amd.com>,
        <sonal.santan@amd.com>, <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>
References: <1688059190-4225-3-git-send-email-lizhi.hou@amd.com>
 <20230629225631.GA446944@bhelgaas> <20230629235226.GA92592-robh@kernel.org>
 <9f39fc3d-ae40-e5b1-8d40-8c27fc4e1022@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <9f39fc3d-ae40-e5b1-8d40-8c27fc4e1022@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2023 15:50:41.6860
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ddfb7a9b-e98b-4771-f9c1-08db87a6bd8e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB03.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT101.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ2PR12MB8182
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
        DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,NICE_REPLY_A,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,
        T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
        version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Rob,

Do you have any comment on this?

Thanks,

Lizhi

On 6/30/23 11:24, Lizhi Hou wrote:
>
> On 6/29/23 16:52, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> +            rp[i].child_addr[0] = j;
>>>> +    ret = of_changeset_add_empty_prop(ocs, np, "dynamic");
>>> It seems slightly confusing to use a "dynamic" property here when we
>>> also have the OF_DYNAMIC dynamic flag above.  I think they have
>>> different meanings, don't they?
>> Hum, what's the property for? It's new in this version. Any DT property
>> needs to be documented, but I don't see why we need it.
>
> This is mentioned in my previous reply for V9
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/af9b6bb3-a98d-4fb6-b51e-b48bca61dada@amd.com/ 
>
>
> As we discussed before, "interrupt-map" was intended to be used here.
>
> And after thinking it more, it may not work for the cases where ppnode
>
> is not dynamically generated and it does not have "interrupt-map".
>
> For example the IBM ppc system, its device tree has nodes for pci bridge
>
> and it does not have "interrupt-map".
>
> Based on previous discussions, OF_DYNAMIC should not be used here.
>
> So I think adding "dynamic" might be a way to identify the dynamically
>
> added node. Or we can introduce a new flag e.g OF_IRQ_SWIZZLING.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lizhi
>