[PATCH v3 2/7] dt-bindings: PCI: ti,am65: Extend for use with PVU

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/08/2024 09:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 29.08.24 08:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 08:01:15PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com>
>>>
>>> The PVU on the AM65 SoC is capable of restricting DMA from PCIe devices
>>> to specific regions of host memory. Add the optional property
>>> "memory-regions" to point to such regions of memory when PVU is used.
>>>
>>> Since the PVU deals with system physical addresses, utilizing the PVU
>>> with PCIe devices also requires setting up the VMAP registers to map the
>>> Requester ID of the PCIe device to the CBA Virtual ID, which in turn is
>>> mapped to the system physical address. Hence, describe the VMAP
>>> registers which are optionally unless the PVU shall used for PCIe.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com>
>>> ---
>>> CC: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi at kernel.org>
>>> CC: "Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw at linux.com>
>>> CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas at google.com>
>>> CC: linux-pci at vger.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/pci/ti,am65-pci-host.yaml        | 52 ++++++++++++++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/ti,am65-pci-host.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/ti,am65-pci-host.yaml
>>> index 0a9d10532cc8..d8182bad92de 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/ti,am65-pci-host.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/ti,am65-pci-host.yaml
>>> @@ -19,16 +19,6 @@ properties:
>>>        - ti,am654-pcie-rc
>>>        - ti,keystone-pcie
>>>  
>>> -  reg:
>>> -    maxItems: 4
>>> -
>>> -  reg-names:
>>> -    items:
>>> -      - const: app
>>> -      - const: dbics
>>> -      - const: config
>>> -      - const: atu
>>> -
>>
>> Properties must be defined in top-level.
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
>>
> 
> Tried that already, moving the else: part to top-level, but dtschema
> (2024.5) checks fail then. Could you explain why?

The example does not "move the else to top-level", so why would you do
it? I gave you the code to copy&paste. I don't know how to write it simpler.

Best regards,
Krzysztof