[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6ebe7084-bb00-4fac-b64d-e08e188f3005@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:25:06 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...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 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ram Kumar Dwivedi <quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Split SC7280 and similar into
separate file
On 30/07/2025 15:53, Nitin Rawat wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/2025 6:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The binding for Qualcomm SoC UFS controllers grew and it will grow
>> further. It already includes several conditionals, partially for
>> difference in handling encryption block (ICE, either as phandle or as IO
>> address space) but it will further grow for MCQ.
>>
>> See also: lore.kernel.org/r/20250730082229.23475-1-quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com
>>
>> The question is whether SM8650 and SM8750 should have their own schemas,
>> but based on bindings above I think all devices here have MCQ?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> If I understand correctly, you're splitting the YAML files based on MCQ
> (Multi-Circular Queue) support:
Not entirely, I don't know which devices support MCQ. I split based on
common parts in the binding.
>
> -qcom,sc7280-ufshc.yaml includes targets that support MCQ
> -qcom,ufs-common.yaml includes common properties
> -qcom,ufs.yaml includes targets that do not support MCQ
>
>
> In future, if a new property applies to both some MCQ and some
> non-MCQ targets, we would need to update both YAML files. In the current
No
> implementation, we handle such cases using if-else conditions to include
> the new property.
Hm?
>
> For reference, only SM8650 and SM8750 currently support MCQ, though more
> targets may be added later.
Are you sure? Are you claiming that SM8550 hardware does not support MCQ?
>
> Regarding the patch
> lore.kernel.org/r/20250730082229.23475-1-quic_rdwivedi@...cinc.com,
> instead of using two separate YAML files, we could use if-else
> conditions to differentiate the reg and reg-name properties between MCQ
> targets (SM8650 and SM8750) and non-MCQ targets (all others).
It's a mess already and you want to make it messy. I already responded
on that.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists