On 11/02/2019 18:23, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:32:15PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > >> Unfortunately, this optimization breaks UFS on systems where vccq >> powers not only the Flash chip, but the host controller as well, >> such as APQ8098 MEDIABOX or MTP8998. >> >> In my opinion, the rationale for the original patch is questionable. >> If neither the UFSHC, nor the Flash chip, require any load from vccq, >> then that power rail should simply not be specified at all in the DT. > > If the supply is physically connected it should be valid to represent > this in DT regardless of how or if the supply gets used at runtime. > However it does sound like this support needs to be better thought > through to make sure we have represented the supplies to the flash chip > and the controller separately - it seems like right now there's no > tracking of the supplies needed for the controller and the assumption is > that only the flash chip needs managing which is breaking things. As far as I'm aware, the conflation of host controller with their respective storage medium occurs across several techs: UFS, NAND, SDHC, EMMC. There might be room for improvement, but I don't think these considerations should hold up this series, which fixes something that is broken *today*. UFS reviewers (Alim, Avri, Pedro), can I get at least one Acked-by to remove this small power optimization that breaks UFS on my system? Regards.
