[U-Boot] [PATCH] pci: Support parsing PCI controller DT subnodes

[Marek Vasut]

On 09/02/2018 03:07 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On 1 September 2018 at 16:43, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/01/2018 11:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>>
>>> On 30 August 2018 at 03:25, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/30/2018 02:29 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have both EHCI and a xHCI controller which can occupy the same
>>>>>>> BFD, then how would you supply in the DT options needed by the
>>>>>>> controller itself? Don't you need two nodes in that case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the PHY case, it's controller-type-independent.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean? Your example of why you can't use compatible strings
>>>>> says you might have two different PHYs. But I think you should answer
>>>>> my questions:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have both EHCI and a xHCI controller which can occupy the same
>>>>>>> BFD, then how would you supply in the DT options needed by the
>>>>>>> controller itself? Don't you need two nodes in that case?
>>>>
>>>> You need only one node (if the PHY works with both controller options),
>>>> which contains "reg" and "phy" properties. The driver matching is done
>>>> on the PCI ID/class and the node is associated with the driver based on
>>>> the "reg" property.
>>>
>>> I think you need two nodes if there are DT options that are different
>>> for each PHY. In fact I think this is impossible to do with the reg
>>> scheme.
>>>
>>> In effect the PHYs are different. They have different drivers,
>>> assuming drivers are needed. So I feel that using a common address to
>>> match two different devices is actually just weird.
>>
>> I think I lost you. But this discussion is really hypothetical. You
>> _can_ have a USB PHY which can attach to both USB 2 and USB 3
>> controller, in which case you would have only one DT node to describe it.
> 
> Can you point to an example of this? Otherwise it seems hypothetical.

Nope, it's just electrically viable.

> As a counter-example, see exynos54xx.dtsi.

What exactly am I looking for ?

> I believe the correct way to do this is to enable/disable DT nodes. Do
> you have any pointers to suggest that the same node should be used for
> two devices?

Nope

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut