On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:36:52PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On 2/8/2016 3:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:17:11PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: > >> Hi Mark and Arnd, > >> Are you saying that a user that puts "snps,ufshcd-1.1" > >> in the DT compatibility string disables the UFS 2.0 in the core driver despite > >> the controller is 2.0? Please clarify. > > > > If you can consistently and safely detect that the HW is 2.0, using 2.0 > > functionality is fine. > > > > Regardless, you should have a -1.1 compatible string for the 1.1 HW, and > > a -2.0 string for the 2.0 HW, so that DTs are explicit about what the > > hardware is. If 2.0 is intended to be a superset of 1.1, you can have a > > 1.1 fallback entry for the 2.0 hardware. > > > > Ok, I will include the version in the compatibility strings, but if someone > mentions "snps,ufshcd-1.1" only and the driver detects that the HW is 2.0 > capable it will activate the 2.0 features independently of what mentioned in the > DT, correct? As above, if that can be detected safely and reliably, then I don't see a problem with that. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
