Hi,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:19 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Evan Green (2018-10-26 10:35:43)
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts
> > index eedfaf8922e2..d5fddea71a85 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-mtp.dts
> > @@ -356,6 +356,20 @@
> > status = "okay";
> > };
> >
> > +&ufshc1 {
> > + status = "okay";
> > +
> > + vcc-supply = <&vreg_l20a_2p95>;
> > + vcc-max-microamp = <600000>;
>
> Is this board dependent? I would guess this is SoC specific and not
> board specific.
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +&ufsphy1 {
> > + status = "okay";
> > +
> > + vdda-phy-supply = <&vdda_ufs1_core>;
> > + vdda-pll-supply = <&vdda_ufs1_1p2>;
>
> These two properties can be specified in the SoC dtsi file instead of
> each board variant file. This way we don't have to specify the things
> that are SoC independent in each board file. The board integrator just
> has to attach the labels to the right regulator nodes, in this case
> vdda_ufs1_core and vdda_ufs1_1p2, and then the sdm845.dtsi file will be
> matched up with the right regulator automatically. It's also nice so
> that board integrators don't have to know anything besides what
> regulator goes to what pin on the SoC.
This is an interesting proposal and it feels like we have to consider
the tradeoffs.
I agree that it would be nice not to have to specify this in every
single board .dts file, but at the same time what if you've got a
board that doesn't use UFS? Such a board would bother adding the
labels "vdda_ufs1_core" and "vdda_ufs1_1p2". This would lead to a
compile error in the device tree bindings. That seems pretty
undesirable.
+Bjorn since I think Bjorn wasn't a huge fan of the labels like
"vdda_ufs1_core" to start with.
-Doug
