Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> From: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk >> are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization >> fail, but rather just report with debug message. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > Shouldn't we have a different compatible string on future UFS phys so > that we know which number of clks and what clks are required? That's how > we typically handle clk configurations changing. Making them optional > should really only be needed when they're really optional, i.e. things > will work fine if they're there or not. Correct. It makes sense to have different compatible strings for different versions. I will gather more information about previous versions that required this clock, and update as suggested. Regards Vivek -- 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-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
