On 8 March 2023 08:23:57 GMT-03:00, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8.03.2023 12:02, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:09:48AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 6.03.2023 18:08, Lux Aliaga wrote:
>> >>> The SM6125 UFS PHY is compatible with the one from SM6115. Add a
>> >>> compatible for it and modify the config from SM6115 to make them
>> >>> compatible with the SC8280XP binding
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lux Aliaga <they@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> Reviewed-by: Martin Botka <martin.botka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> ---
>> >>> drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c
>> >>> index 318eea35b972..44c29fdfc551 100644
>> >>> --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c
>> >>> +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-ufs.c
>> >>> @@ -620,6 +620,13 @@ static const char * const qmp_phy_vreg_l[] = {
>> >>> "vdda-phy", "vdda-pll",
>> >>> };
>> >>>
>> >>> +static const struct qmp_ufs_offsets qmp_ufs_offsets_v3_660 = {
>> >>> + .serdes = 0,
>> >>> + .pcs = 0xc00,
>> >>> + .tx = 0x400,
>> >>> + .rx = 0x600,
>> >>> +};
>> >>> +
>> >>> static const struct qmp_ufs_offsets qmp_ufs_offsets_v5 = {
>> >>> .serdes = 0,
>> >>> .pcs = 0xc00,
>> >>> @@ -693,6 +700,8 @@ static const struct qmp_phy_cfg sdm845_ufsphy_cfg = {
>> >>> static const struct qmp_phy_cfg sm6115_ufsphy_cfg = {
>> >>> .lanes = 1,
>> >>>
>> >>> + .offsets = &qmp_ufs_offsets_v3_660,
>> >> Will this not trigger OOB r/w for the users of qcom,sm6115-smp-ufs-phy
>> >> which specify the regions separately (old binding style)?
>> >
>> > No, that should work fine.
>> So do you think the SM6115 binding could be updated too? Or should
>> we keep it as-is for ABI purposes?..
>
>They could be and the possibility has been raised. I think it may be
>more important to convert the old combo-phy binding (it's on my list,
>but I keep getting preempted), but at some point we can get rid of the
>legacy UFS binding as well.
>
>> > But looks like this series needs to be rebased on 6.3-rc1 as these
>> > offsets are now already set in mainline.
>> ..Or did you do that already and I can't find it?
>
>It seems a previous version of this patch was merged almost two months
>ago.
>
> 9b9e29af984c ("phy: qcom-qmp: Add SM6125 UFS PHY support")
>
>Not sure what failed here.
>
>Johan
Yes, but it received some comments regarding using v5 offsets instead of v3-660. I could spin off this change into a new patch if necessary.
