On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > From: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk > are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization > fail, but rather just report with debug message. > > Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- Shouldn't we have a different compatible string on future UFS phys so that we know which number of clks and what clks are required? That's how we typically handle clk configurations changing. Making them optional should really only be needed when they're really optional, i.e. things will work fine if they're there or not. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
