On 01/07/2025 13:56, Manikandan Karunakaran Pillai wrote: > >>>> 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. No, there was no such suggestions in any previous or current discussions. IIRC, this was simply rejected previously. I consider this rejected still, with the same arguments: you should use specific SoC compatibles. The generic compatible alone is rather legacy approach and we have been commenting on this sooooo many times. Best regards, Krzysztof
