[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74d62ddf-8257-3f67-c33d-b6e76314bc3b@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:37:55 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
"Potthuri, Sai Krishna" <sai.krishna.potthuri@....com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"git (AMD-Xilinx)" <git@....com>,
"saikrishna12468@...il.com" <saikrishna12468@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mmc: arasan,sdci: Add Xilinx Versal Net
compatible
On 28/03/2023 09:31, Michal Simek wrote:
>
>
> On 3/28/23 09:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/03/2023 11:58, Potthuri, Sai Krishna wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 5:14 PM
>>>> To: Potthuri, Sai Krishna <sai.krishna.potthuri@....com>; Ulf Hansson
>>>> <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>; Krzysztof
>>>> Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>; Michal Simek
>>>> <michal.simek@...inx.com>; Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
>>>> devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; git (AMD-
>>>> Xilinx) <git@....com>; saikrishna12468@...il.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mmc: arasan,sdci: Add Xilinx Versal Net
>>>> compatible
>>>>
>>>> On 24/03/2023 08:36, Sai Krishna Potthuri wrote:
>>>>> Add Xilinx Versal Net compatible to support eMMC 5.1 PHY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sai Krishna Potthuri <sai.krishna.potthuri@....com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml | 6 ++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml
>>>>> index 8296c34cfa00..cf44a4b988a7 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.yaml
>>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ allOf:
>>>>> enum:
>>>>> - xlnx,zynqmp-8.9a
>>>>> - xlnx,versal-8.9a
>>>>> + - xlnx,versal-net-5.1-emmc
>>>>
>>>> v5.1 is eMMC standard or Versal block version? If the first, it's not suitable for
>>>> compatibles.
>>>>
>>>> Also, what's the difference from xlnx,versal-8.9a?
>>> V5.1 is an eMMC standard and this compatible is defined based on sdhci arasan
>>> eMMC5.1 Host Controller(arasan,sdhci-5.1), where as in Versal, it’s a different
>>> controller and it is based on 4.51 Host Controller(arasan,sdhci-8.9a).
>>
>> Mixing IP block versions and eMMC spec versions in one binding is a
>> great way to confuse.
>
> What do you suggest then?
Stick to IP block versions or code names. The eMMC spec version would
only make sense if you had such possibility:
xlnx,versal-net-emmc-5.0
xlnx,versal-net-emmc-5.1
xlnx,versal-net-emmc-x.y
So exactly one device with different blocks inside. This is very
uncommon, but there such SoC (SunPlus IIRC).
>
>>
>>> Versal Net Compatible is defined it this way to make it inline with the other
>>> existing SoC compatibles like "intel,keembay-sdhci-5.1-emmc".
>>> Please suggest if the compatible need to be renamed to "xlnx,versal-net-emmc"?
>>
>> Is Versal Net uniquely identifying your SoC or IP block?
>
> Yes. versal-net is unique identifier for specific silicon with fixed set if IPs.
Then I suggest xlnx,versal-net-emmc.
> Can you please refresh my mind if we can introduce specific compatible strings
> for this SOC or should we used existing one if functionality is the same with
> previous SOC family?
It's regular case and recommendation is always (for every SoC) the same:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst#L42
You should add new SoC specific compatible followed by existing one
(fallback).
> There could be currently unknown issues related to SOC wiring out of specific IP
> version.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists