On 3/6/2023 14:09, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 6.03.2023 18:01, Lux Aliaga wrote:
On 06/03/2023 13:52, Lux Aliaga wrote:
Document the compatible for UFS found on the SM6125.
Signed-off-by: Lux Aliaga <they@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Martin Botka <martin.botka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
index b517d76215e3..42422f3471b3 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ properties:
- qcom,sc8280xp-ufshc
- qcom,sdm845-ufshc
- qcom,sm6115-ufshc
+ - qcom,sm6125-ufshc
- qcom,sm6350-ufshc
- qcom,sm8150-ufshc
- qcom,sm8250-ufshc
@@ -185,6 +186,7 @@ allOf:
contains:
enum:
- qcom,sm6115-ufshc
+ - qcom,sm6125-ufshc
then:
properties:
clocks:
I have to apologize. I worked on a changelog for this patchset but I skipped the subject header, therefore it didn't send, and as I realized this I interrupted the process, leaving the patchset incomplete. I'll retry sending it, this time correctly.
Happens, next time resend it with a RESEND prefix, e.g. [RESEND PATCH 1/2]
Konrad
Thank you! Will take this into consideration for the future. I received
this email after I resent the patchset, so that's why I didn't add the
prefix.
--
Lux Aliaga
https://nixgoat.me/
