Re: FW: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: pcie: Add documentation for Mediatek PCIe

From: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: FW: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: pcie: Add documentation for Mediatek PCIe
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 15:09:38 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1493708978.6464.37.camel@mtkswgap22> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BAFE512E7223A4B91F29C40AC7A579616B5155E@MTKMBS05N1.mediatek.inc>

Hi Arnd,

> 2017-04-28 19:41 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> 
>         On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Ryder Lee
>         <ryder.lee@mediatek.com> wrote:
>         > On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 21:06 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>         >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Ryder Lee
>         <ryder.lee@mediatek.com> wrote:
>         >> > On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 14:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>         >> >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Ryder Lee
>         <ryder.lee@mediatek.com> wrote:
>         >> Are any of the registers the same at all, e.g. for MSI
>         handling?
>         >
>         > No, It doesn't support MSI. All I can do is using the
>         registers that designer provide to me. The others are inviable
>         for software. So I treat it as different hardware.
>         Furthermore, we hope that we can put all mediatek drivers
>         together regardless of in-house IP or lincense IP
>         >
>         > We have no particular IP name but just use chip name to call
>         it. So I will temporarily use "mediatek,gen2v1-pcie" in patch
>         v1.
>         
>         I think using the chip name as in the first version of your
>         patch name is better then, in particular since the 'gen2v1'
>         would not be an actual version number but just say which
>         variant got merged into mainline first.

Okay, i will correct it.

>         A related question would be on how general we want the binding
>         to be.
>         Your binding text starts out by describing that there are
>         three root ports and what their capabilities are.
>         
>         If you think there might be other (existing or future) chips
>         that use the same binding and driver, then being a little more
>         abstract could help in the long run.

Thanks for reminding me. If we decide to use the same driver in the
future, we will have a internal discussion about it.

Ryder.