[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y43jtpHqlyiIEZ0S@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 13:27:34 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: allow 'dma-coherent' property
On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 05:50:18PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 01:07:16PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 05:29:06PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > UFS controllers may be cache coherent and must be marked as such in the
> > > > devicetree to avoid data corruption.
> > > >
> > > > This is specifically needed on recent Qualcomm platforms like SC8280XP.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > 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 f2d6298d926c..1f1d286749c0 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ properties:
> > > > minItems: 8
> > > > maxItems: 11
> > > >
> > > > + dma-coherent: true
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This property is not applicable to all SoCs. So setting true here will make it
> > > valid for all.
> >
> > Yes, it would be a valid, but it will only be added to the DTs of SoCs
> > that actually require it. No need to re-encode the dtsi in the binding.
> >
>
> But if you make a property valid in the binding then it implies that anyone
> could add it to DTS which is wrong. You should make this property valid for
> SoCs that actually support it.
No, it's not wrong.
Note that the binding only requires 'compatible' and 'regs', all other
properties are optional, and you could, for example, add a
'reset' property to a node for a device which does not have a reset
without the DT validation failing.
It's the devicetree which is supposed to describe hardware, you don't
have to encode it also in the binding.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists