>>> On 2025/6/30 15:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 12:15:48PM +0800, hans.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxx >wrote: >>>>> From: Manikandan K Pillai <mpillai@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Document the compatible property for HPA (High Performance >>> Architecture) >>>>> PCIe controller RP configuration. >>>> >>>> I don't see Conor's comment addressed: >>>> >>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux- >>> devicetree/20250424-elm-magma- >>> b791798477ab@spud/__;!!EHscmS1ygiU1lA!Bo- >>> >ayMVqCWXSbSgFpsBZzgk1ADft8pqRQbuOeAhIuAjz0zI015s4dmzxgaWKycqKMn >>> 1cejS8kKZvjF5xDAse$ >>>> >>>> You cannot just send someone's work and bypassing the review feedback. >> >> I thought the comment was implicitly addressed when the device drivers >were separated out based on other review comments in this patch. >> To make it more clear, in the next patch I will add the following description >for the dt-binding patch >> >> "The High performance architecture is different from legacy architecture >controller in design of register banks, >> register definitions, hardware sequences of initialization and is considered as >a different device due to the >> large number of changes required in the device driver and hence adding a >new compatible." >That's still vague. Anyway this does not address other concern that the >generic compatible is discouraged and we expect specific compatibles. We >already said that and what? You send the same patch. > >So no, don't send the same patch. Hi Kryzsztof, Are you suggesting to create new file for both RC and EP for HPA host like: cdns,cdns-pcie-hpa-host.yaml cdns,cdns-pcie-hpa-ep.yaml And during the commit log, explain why you need to create a new file for HPA, and not use the legacy one. >Best regards, >Krzysztof
