On 11/03/2023 18:40, Sergey Lisov wrote: >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> Why did you remove the subject? Please keep the mailing process matching mailing lists. It messes with mailboxes, filters and reading process. >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml >>> index 8dfad89c7..2bc5ac528 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc-common.yaml >>> @@ -57,6 +57,12 @@ properties: >>> force fifo watermark setting accordingly. >>> $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/flag >>> >>> + fifo-access-32bit: >> >> Missing type boolean. > > Thanks, will add the same $ref as for the entry above. > >>> + description: >>> + Specifies that this device requires accesses to its 64-bit registers >>> + to be done as pairs of 32-bit accesses, even on architectures where >>> + readq is available. >> >> And why the device would require this? If it has 64-bit registers in the >> first place, they can be accessed in 64-bit. Otherwise these are not >> 64-bit registers, but just lower/upper 32-bit, right? >> >> Also, why this cannot be implied from compatible? Why different boards >> with same SoC should have different FIFO access? > > It probably can be implied, but I am not exactly sure on which boards it > affects, so I decided to go for a new devicetree option. Anyway, the same > argument applies to the "data-addr" property, which is already in the > spec, so I supposed that adding such knobs is fine. Yeah, Rob acked it so I will let him to judge this. To me it looks like unnecessary fragmentation - this looks like compatible specific, not board. Anyway you need to resend to fix all the mailing mess. Best regards, Krzysztof
