On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:39:26 -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> If you look at the bindings for the UFS Host Controller it says:
>
> - compatible: must contain "jedec,ufs-1.1" or "jedec,ufs-2.0", may
> also list one or more of the following:
> "qcom,msm8994-ufshc"
> "qcom,msm8996-ufshc"
> "qcom,ufshc"
>
> My reading of that is that it's fine to just have either of these:
> 1. "qcom,msm8996-ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"
> 2. "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0"
>
> As far as I can tell neither of the above is actually a good idea.
>
> For #1 it turns out that the driver currently only keys off the
> compatible string "qcom,ufshc" so it won't actually probe.
>
> For #2 the driver won't probe but it's not a good idea to keep the SoC
> name out of the compatible string.
>
> Let's update the compatible string to make it really explicit. We'll
> include a nod to the existing driver and the old binding and say that
> we should always include the "qcom,ufshc" string in addition to the
> SoC compatible string.
>
> While we're at it we'll also include another example SoC known to have
> UFS: sdm845.
>
> Fixes: 47555a5c8a11 ("scsi: ufs: make the UFS variant a platform device")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
