[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4937df72-9efb-45c5-9c46-2a9d3ec8887f@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 09:52:20 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: document SC7180 UFS
On 28/03/2024 04:59, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>> - if:
>> properties:
>> compatible:
>> @@ -250,7 +276,7 @@ allOf:
>> reg:
>> maxItems: 1
>> clocks:
>> - minItems: 8
>> + minItems: 7
>> maxItems: 8
>> else:
>> properties:
>> @@ -258,7 +284,7 @@ allOf:
>> minItems: 1
>> maxItems: 2
>> clocks:
>> - minItems: 8
>> + minItems: 7
>
> I'm getting confused by the clock requirements for qcom,ice. Why does specifying
> the qcom,ice phandle require these clocks? These are the UFSHC clocks and
> already defined above.
I am also confused, but I did not change that logic. I don't think that
it is anyway useful, but that separate topic from this patch.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists