On 28/03/2023 09:31, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 3/28/23 09:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 27/03/2023 11:58, Potthuri, Sai Krishna wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 5:14 PM >>>> To: Potthuri, Sai Krishna <sai.krishna.potthuri@xxxxxxx>; Ulf Hansson >>>> <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof >>>> Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Michal Simek >>>> <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx>; Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >>>> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; git (AMD- >>>> Xilinx) <git@xxxxxxx>; saikrishna12468@xxxxxxxxx >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mmc: arasan,sdci: Add Xilinx Versal Net >>>> compatible >>>> >>>> On 24/03/2023 08:36, Sai Krishna Potthuri wrote: >>>>> Add Xilinx Versal Net compatible to support eMMC 5.1 PHY. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sai Krishna Potthuri <sai.krishna.potthuri@xxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml | 6 ++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml >>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml >>>>> index 8296c34cfa00..cf44a4b988a7 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml >>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ allOf: >>>>> enum: >>>>> - xlnx,zynqmp-8.9a >>>>> - xlnx,versal-8.9a >>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-5.1-emmc >>>> >>>> v5.1 is eMMC standard or Versal block version? If the first, it's not suitable for >>>> compatibles. >>>> >>>> Also, what's the difference from xlnx,versal-8.9a? >>> V5.1 is an eMMC standard and this compatible is defined based on sdhci arasan >>> eMMC5.1 Host Controller(arasan,sdhci-5.1), where as in Versal, it’s a different >>> controller and it is based on 4.51 Host Controller(arasan,sdhci-8.9a). >> >> Mixing IP block versions and eMMC spec versions in one binding is a >> great way to confuse. > > What do you suggest then? Stick to IP block versions or code names. The eMMC spec version would only make sense if you had such possibility: xlnx,versal-net-emmc-5.0 xlnx,versal-net-emmc-5.1 xlnx,versal-net-emmc-x.y So exactly one device with different blocks inside. This is very uncommon, but there such SoC (SunPlus IIRC). > >> >>> Versal Net Compatible is defined it this way to make it inline with the other >>> existing SoC compatibles like "intel,keembay-sdhci-5.1-emmc". >>> Please suggest if the compatible need to be renamed to "xlnx,versal-net-emmc"? >> >> Is Versal Net uniquely identifying your SoC or IP block? > > Yes. versal-net is unique identifier for specific silicon with fixed set if IPs. Then I suggest xlnx,versal-net-emmc. > Can you please refresh my mind if we can introduce specific compatible strings > for this SOC or should we used existing one if functionality is the same with > previous SOC family? It's regular case and recommendation is always (for every SoC) the same: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L42 You should add new SoC specific compatible followed by existing one (fallback). > There could be currently unknown issues related to SOC wiring out of specific IP > version. Best regards, Krzysztof
