[PATCH 1/4] PCI: of: Add of_pci_clkreq_present()

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 06:13:59PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> Hi Mani
> 
> 在 2025/10/22 星期三 18:02, Manivannan Sadhasivam 写道:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 03:48:24PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> > > of_pci_clkreq_present() is used by host drivers to decide whether the clkreq#
> > > is properly connected and could enable L1.1/L1.2 support.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin at rock-chips.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/pci/of.c  | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >   drivers/pci/pci.h |  6 ++++++
> > >   2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/of.c b/drivers/pci/of.c
> > > index 3579265f1198..52c6d365083b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/of.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/of.c
> > > @@ -1010,3 +1010,21 @@ int of_pci_get_equalization_presets(struct device *dev,
> > >   	return 0;
> > >   }
> > >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_pci_get_equalization_presets);
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * of_pci_clkreq_present() - Check if the "supports-clkreq" is present
> > 
> > I don't see a benefit of this API, tbh. The API name creates an impression that
> > the API will check for the presence of CLKREQ# signal in DT, but it checks
> > for the presence of the 'supports-clkreq' property. Even though the presence of
> > the property implies that the CLKREQ# routing is available, I'd prefer to check
> > for the property explicitly instead of hiding it inside this API.
> 
> It makes sense.
> 
> Will the name of_pci_supports_clkreq_present() look good? Or we just
> drop it and let host drivers to explicitly check supports-clkreq inside
> their code?
> 

I'd prefer to drop the API.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்