On 2023/9/12 0:14, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Emil Renner Berthing wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 12:03, William Qiu <william.qiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 2023/9/2 1:43, Conor Dooley wrote: >> > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 06:20:38PM +0100, Jessica Clarke wrote: >> > >> On 1 Sep 2023, at 16:42, Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:33:13AM +0800, William Qiu wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On 2023/8/30 16:34, Conor Dooley wrote: >> > >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 09:29:20AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> > >> >>>> On 30/08/2023 08:50, Conor Dooley wrote: >> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:18:44AM +0800, William Qiu wrote: >> > >> >>>>>> Due to the change of tuning implementation, it's no longer necessary to >> > >> >>>>>> use the "starfive,sysreg" property in dts, so drop the relevant >> > >> >>>>>> description in dt-bindings here. >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> How does changing your software implantation invalidate a description of >> > >> >>>>> the hardware? >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Which is kind of proof that this syscon was just to substitute >> > >> >>>> incomplete hardware description (e.g. missing clocks and phys). We >> > >> >>>> should have rejected it. Just like we should reject them in the future. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> :s I dunno what to do with this... I'm inclined to say not to remove it >> > >> >>> from the binding or dts at all & only change the software. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>>> There are just few cases where syscon is reasonable. All others is just >> > >> >>>> laziness. It's not only starfivetech, of course. Several other >> > >> >>>> contributors do the same. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> I'm not sure if laziness is fair, lack of understanding is usually more >> > >> >>> likely. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> For this, I tend to keep it in binding, but remove it from required. Because >> > >> >> we only modify the tuning implementation, it doesn't mean that this property >> > >> >> need to be removed, it's just no longer be the required one. >> > >> > >> > >> > Please only remove it from required if the current driver doesn't break >> > >> > if the regmap is removed. >> > >> >> > >> Either way please make sure the documentation clearly states “never use >> > >> this, if you’re using it you’re doing it wrong, this only exists >> > >> because it was wrongly used in the past”. Otherwise people writing >> > >> drivers for other OSes will probably use it too thinking they need to. >> > > >> > > Maybe we should just delete it if the impact is going to be negligible, >> > > sounds like you're not using it in FreeBSD, which was part of what I was >> > > worried about. Guess it depends on what Emil & the distro heads think. >> > Hi Conor, >> > >> > After discussing it with our colleagues, we decided that deleting it was the best >> > course of action. Since there will no longer be a related implementation of >> > "starfive,sysreg" in future drivers, even if the dt-binding is described, it will >> > be "never use", so I think it should be deleted. >> > >> > What do you think? >> >> The device tree should be a description of the hardware and there >> really is a 'u0_sdio_data_strobe_phase_ctrl' field in the sysreg >> registers[1] on the JH7110 that seems to do _something_ related to the >> sdio interface. So I don't think the fact that the Linux driver no >> longer uses it is a good reason to remove it, but if there are some >> other pragmatic reasons to do so then I'm fine with it. Removing it >> from the list of required properties should be fine though. > > SGTM. Can you update the patch to do that please William? > > Thanks, > Conor. OK, I will update the patch as suggested by Emil. Best Regards, William
