From: pku.leo@gmail.com [mailto:pku.leo@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