On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 02:12:48PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 06:30:48PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 01:27:34PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 05:50:18PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 01:07:16PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 05:29:06PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > > > UFS controllers may be cache coherent and must be marked as such in the > > > > > > > devicetree to avoid data corruption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is specifically needed on recent Qualcomm platforms like SC8280XP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Yes, it would be a valid, but it will only be added to the DTs of SoCs > > > > > that actually require it. No need to re-encode the dtsi in the binding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if you make a property valid in the binding then it implies that anyone > > > > could add it to DTS which is wrong. You should make this property valid for > > > > SoCs that actually support it. > > > > > > No, it's not wrong. > > > > > > Note that the binding only requires 'compatible' and 'regs', all other > > > properties are optional, and you could, for example, add a > > > 'reset' property to a node for a device which does not have a reset > > > without the DT validation failing. > > > > > > > Then what is the point of devicetree validation using bindings? > > You're still making sure that no properties are added that are not > documented, number of clocks, names of clocks, etc. > > > There is also a comment from Krzysztof: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/11/24/390 > > Speaking of Krzysztof: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221204094717.74016-5-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/ > Heh... I will wait for him to chime in then. Thanks, Mani > Johan -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
