From: pku.leo at gmail.com [mailto:pku.leo at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:36 AM
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Friday 04 September 2015 12:27:46 Bhupesh Sharma wrote:

quoted

@@ -4,7 +4,8 @@ This PCIe host controller is based on the Synopsis

Designware PCIe IP  and thus inherits all the common properties

defined in designware-pcie.txt.

quoted

quoted

 Required properties:
-- compatible: should contain the platform identifier such as

"fsl,ls1021a-pcie"

quoted

quoted

+- compatible: should contain the platform identifier such as
+"fsl,ls1021a-pcie",
+  "fsl,ls2080a-pcie".
 - reg: base addresses and lengths of the PCIe controller
 - interrupts: A list of interrupt outputs of the controller. Must

contain an

quoted

quoted

   entry for each entry in the interrupt-names property.

Are the two PCIe hosts mutually compatible? If they are, you should
mandate one of the strings as the base model for identification, with
the additional model being optional for identification of the specific

SoC.

It seems that controllers on these chips are not exactly the same.
They will get different driver data by matching the compatible strings.
Probably we could define a more generic compatible string, such as
"fsl,layerscape-pcie" or "fsl,ls-pcie".

Yes, Minghaun captured the differences in the two versions in the v1 review
discussion for the DTS here:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-April/338343.html

Regards,
Bhupesh