On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 04:38:56PM +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote: > On Mon Apr 8, 2024 at 4:10 PM CEST, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 05:02:15PM +0200, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > > + if (ddata && ddata->quirks & CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH) { > > > + cqspi->fifo_depth = fifo_depth; > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "using FIFO depth of %u\n", fifo_depth); > > > + } else if (fifo_depth != cqspi->fifo_depth) { > > > + dev_warn(dev, "detected FIFO depth (%u) different from config (%u)\n", > > > + fifo_depth, cqspi->fifo_depth); > > > + } > > It's not obvious to me that we should ignore an explicitly specified > > property if the quirk is present > DT value isn't expected for compatibles with CQSPI_DETECT_FIFO_DEPTH > quirk, therefore we do not ignore a specified property. Bindings agree: > prop is false with EyeQ5 compatible. Sure, but it's not obvious that that is the most helpful or constructive way to handle things. > > - if anything I'd more expect to see > > the new warning in that case, possibly with a higher severity if we're > > saying that the quirk means we're more confident that the data reported > > by the hardware is reliable. I think what I'd expect is that we always > > use an explicitly specified depth (hopefully the user was specifying it > > for a reason?). > The goal was a simpler devicetree on Mobileye platform. This is why we > add this behavior flag. You prefer the property to be always present? > This is a only a nice-to-have, you tell me what you prefer. I would prefer that the property is always optional, or only required on platforms where we know that the depth isn't probeable. > I wasn't sure all HW behaved in the same way wrt read-only bits in > SRAMPARTITION, and I do not have access to other platforms exploiting > this driver. This is why I kept behavior reserved for EyeQ5-integrated > IP block. Well, if there's such little confidence that the depth is reported then we shouldn't be logging an error. > > Pulling all the above together can we just drop the quirk and always do > > the detection, or leave the quirk as just controlling the severity with > > which we log any difference between detected and explicitly configured > > depths? > If we do not simplify devicetree, then I'd vote for dropping this patch > entirely. Adding code for detecting such an edge-case doesn't sound > useful. Especially since this kind of error should only occur to people > adding new hardware support; those probably do not need a nice > user-facing error message. What do you think? I'm confused why you think dropping the patch is a good idea?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature