Re: [PATCH 3/4] PCI: qcom: Add Support for Eliza

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 25/05/2026 08:11, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 01:03:09PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22/05/2026 12:48, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 11:34:30AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2026 11:31, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/2026 12:21 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 07:35:31PM +0530, Krishna Chaitanya Chundru wrote:
>>>>>>> Add support for Eliza soc, which has two PCIe controllers capable
>>>>>>> of 8GT/s X1 and 8GT/s X2, using the cfg_1_9_0 configuration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Chaitanya Chundru <krishna.chundru@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 1 +
>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>>>>>> index af6bf5cce65b..40f0a5f247eb 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c
>>>>>>> @@ -2123,6 +2123,7 @@ static int qcom_pcie_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>>  static const struct of_device_id qcom_pcie_match[] = {
>>>>>>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-apq8064", .data = &cfg_2_1_0 },
>>>>>>>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-apq8084", .data = &cfg_1_0_0 },
>>>>>>> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,pcie-eliza", .data = &cfg_1_9_0 },
>>>>>> So compatible with sm8550. Why isn't this explained in commit msg of
>>>>>> the binding?
>>>>> No, PCIe controller is not compatible with sm8550, we are just re using the boot
>>>>> sequence used by the sm8550.
>>>>
>>>> Then with what it is compatible? You cannot use someone else's match
>>>> data and claim they are not compatible. This is contradictory to itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'cfg_1_9_0' is the match data of base PCIe IP v1.9.0, not just SM8550. The 'ops'
>>> callbacks for 'cfg_1_9_0' are compatible with PCIe IPs used in many SoCs such as
>>> SM8550, SM8450, SM8350, SM8250, SM8150, SDX55, SC8180X, and SC7280. And Eliza is
>>> also falling into the same category.
>>>
>> And if all implementations uses the same SW interface, why are you
>> claiming these are not compatible?
>>
> 
> I didn't 'claim' these SoCs are not compatible. In fact, I explicitly said that
> Eliza is compatible with the base IP v1.9.0. But the resources such as clocks,
> regulators might be different between them, though the SWI is compatible. So
> Eliza deserves a new compatible.

Whether Eliza deserves a new compatible was NEVER a part of discussion
here. Bindings are very clear here and do not leave any room for
interpretation.

We discuss ONLY this patch.

> 
> Also, the direct baseline of Eliza is not supported in upstream. So by
> 'compatible', if you are referring to 'fallback' in DT, then using SM8750 would
> be appropriate.

You still won't get an entry for sm8750, so not sure where does that
bring you...

Best regards,
Krzysztof