Hi Rob, On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:12:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 11:21:49PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Add devicetree binding for HI3670 UFS controller. HI3760 SoC is very > > similar to HI3660 SoC with almost same IPs. Only major difference interms > > s/interms/in terms/ > Ack. > > of UFS is the PHY. HI3670 has 10nm PHY. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-hisi.txt | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-hisi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-hisi.txt > > index a48c44817367..a327c1e24365 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-hisi.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufs-hisi.txt > > @@ -6,7 +6,9 @@ Each UFS Host Controller should have its own node. > > Required properties: > > - compatible : compatible list, contains one of the following - > > "hisilicon,hi3660-ufs", "jedec,ufs-1.1" for hisi ufs > > - host controller present on Hi36xx chipset. > > + host controller present on Hi3660 chipset. > > + "hisilicon,hi3670-ufs", "jedec,ufs-2.1" for hisi ufs > > + host controller present on Hi3670 chipset. > > From the description, sounds like having "hisilicon,hi3660-ufs" as a > fallback would be appropriate? > I don't think so. As per my understanding, fallback should be only used when it can make the device functional. But in this case, "hisilicon,hi3660-ufs" will not make the HI3670 UFS functional. So, I will stick to "hisilicon,hi3670-ufs" only. > > - reg : should contain UFS register address space & UFS SYS CTRL register address, > > - interrupt-parent : interrupt device > > Don't document interrupt-parent. It is implied. > Ack. Thanks, Mani > > - interrupts : interrupt number > > -- > > 2.17.1 > >
