On 4/29/2016 1:19 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Joao" == Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Joao, > > Joao> Could you please give me feedback about the UFS patch-set? The > Joao> patches have been acked by various developers, so maybe could it > Joao> be possible to put it into the 4.7 queue? > > It is on my list. Ok, great! > > I think we are OK from a SCSI perspective but I believe there were still > a couple of concerns in the ARM/device tree department. So I would like > some confirmation from those developers that the code is now acceptable. > The concerns were from Rob Herring about mixing PHY and controller in the compatibility string, but that was justified. Check the extract: ">> >>> >>> Combining the phy and controller compatible strings is a bit strange. >>> Generally, they would be separate nodes using the common phy binding. >>> >> >> Correct, but in this case is just the compatibility string is just to >> tell the dw ufs host that it has a 40-bit or a 20-bit test chip >> connected. The Test chip is initialized by a unipro command sequence and there is no more ops related to it. > > Okay. In that case, I think it should be a separate property unless > the controller h/w is synthesized for one or the other. Yes, the hardware must be synthesized for a certain PHY type, 20 or 40-bit. > > Rob > Joao" Thanks, Joao -- 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
