On 2016-11-03 10:07, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Subhash Jadavani
<subhashj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2016-10-29 13:22, Vivek Gautam wrote:
Add a new compatible string for 14nm ufs phy present on msm8996
chipset. This phy is bit different from the legacy 14nm ufs phy
in terms of the clocks that are needed to be handled in the driver.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
New patch in v3 of this cleanup series.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-qcom.txt | 7 +++++--
drivers/phy/phy-qcom-ufs-qmp-14nm.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-qcom.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-qcom.txt
index 070baf4..b6b5130 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-qcom.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-qcom.txt
@@ -7,8 +7,11 @@ To bind UFS PHY with UFS host controller, the
controller node should
contain a phandle reference to UFS PHY node.
Required properties:
-- compatible : compatible list, contains
"qcom,ufs-phy-qmp-20nm"
- or "qcom,ufs-phy-qmp-14nm" according to the
relevant
phy in use.
+- compatible : compatible list, contains one of the following
-
+ "qcom,ufs-phy-qmp-20nm" for 20nm ufs phy,
+ "qcom,ufs-phy-qmp-14nm" for legacy 14nm ufs
phy,
+ "qcom,msm8996-ufs-phy-qmp-14nm" for 14nm ufs
phy
+ present on MSM8996 chipset.
For future chipsets (after MSM8996), we have to use this same
compatible
strings? If yes, "msm8996" in compatible string name may cause
confusions?
may be we should start following v1/v2/... terminologies for this?
something like "qcom,ufs-phy-qmp-v2" to start with?
Are we trying to complement the actual IP hardware versioning with this
?
Isn't it possible that we will end up using v2 for more than a couple
of
actual IP hardware versions ?
I have seen cases wherein the IP versions are preceded by the
SOC names, the IPs appeared first in. And if the same IP is used in
subsequent SOCs, we use same compatible string. This, rather,
makes things easier to comprehend - it's the same IP that was
used on older SoC.
Ok, if this is the standard practice across the board then we should be
fine with this. You may add my Reviewed-by: Subhash Jadavani
<subhashj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I am fine with adding versions to the compatible string as well.
But like i asked earlier - are we just creating versions for our
own understanding, or are we also complementing the actual
IP hardware versions ?
Thanks
Vivek
--
The 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
