On 2/8/2016 4:15 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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. Ok, thanks for the comments! I am working a bit in PCI next version patch and so I predict to produce a new version for UFS next Wednesday. Joao > > 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
