From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755200AbcBHQRc (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:17:32 -0500 Received: from smtprelay.synopsys.com ([198.182.60.111]:42346 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751929AbcBHQR1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 11:17:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] add support for DWC UFS Host Controller To: Mark Rutland , Joao Pinto References: <2072510.CA47OHQsUN@wuerfel> <56B2164E.5060007@synopsys.com> <2087303.0ORDEBS3hn@wuerfel> <56B222C8.5010509@synopsys.com> <20160204162700.GD17587@leverpostej> <56B8B177.2050000@synopsys.com> <20160208153005.GB12536@leverpostej> <56B8B614.10306@synopsys.com> <20160208161530.GB14146@leverpostej> CC: Arnd Bergmann , , , , , , , , , , , , From: Joao Pinto Message-ID: <56B8BF90.3050602@synopsys.com> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:17:20 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160208161530.GB14146@leverpostej> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.13.184.19] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/8/2016 4:15 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:36:52PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On 2/8/2016 3:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:17:11PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: >>>> Hi Mark and Arnd, >>>> Are you saying that a user that puts "snps,ufshcd-1.1" >>>> in the DT compatibility string disables the UFS 2.0 in the core driver despite >>>> the controller is 2.0? Please clarify. >>> >>> If you can consistently and safely detect that the HW is 2.0, using 2.0 >>> functionality is fine. >>> >>> Regardless, you should have a -1.1 compatible string for the 1.1 HW, and >>> a -2.0 string for the 2.0 HW, so that DTs are explicit about what the >>> hardware is. If 2.0 is intended to be a superset of 1.1, you can have a >>> 1.1 fallback entry for the 2.0 hardware. >>> >> >> Ok, I will include the version in the compatibility strings, but if someone >> mentions "snps,ufshcd-1.1" only and the driver detects that the HW is 2.0 >> capable it will activate the 2.0 features independently of what mentioned in the >> DT, correct? > > As above, if that can be detected safely and reliably, then I don't see > a problem with that. Ok, thanks for the comments! I am working a bit in PCI next version patch and so I predict to produce a new version for UFS next Wednesday. Joao > > Thanks, > Mark. > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joao Pinto Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] add support for DWC UFS Host Controller Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:17:20 +0000 Message-ID: <56B8BF90.3050602@synopsys.com> References: <2072510.CA47OHQsUN@wuerfel> <56B2164E.5060007@synopsys.com> <2087303.0ORDEBS3hn@wuerfel> <56B222C8.5010509@synopsys.com> <20160204162700.GD17587@leverpostej> <56B8B177.2050000@synopsys.com> <20160208153005.GB12536@leverpostej> <56B8B614.10306@synopsys.com> <20160208161530.GB14146@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160208161530.GB14146@leverpostej> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland , Joao Pinto Cc: Arnd Bergmann , santosh.sy@samsung.com, h.vinayak@samsung.com, julian.calaby@gmail.com, akinobu.mita@gmail.com, hch@infradead.org, gbroner@codeaurora.org, subhashj@codeaurora.org, CARLOS.PALMINHA@synopsys.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 2/8/2016 4:15 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:36:52PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On 2/8/2016 3:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:17:11PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: >>>> Hi Mark and Arnd, >>>> Are you saying that a user that puts "snps,ufshcd-1.1" >>>> in the DT compatibility string disables the UFS 2.0 in the core driver despite >>>> the controller is 2.0? Please clarify. >>> >>> If you can consistently and safely detect that the HW is 2.0, using 2.0 >>> functionality is fine. >>> >>> Regardless, you should have a -1.1 compatible string for the 1.1 HW, and >>> a -2.0 string for the 2.0 HW, so that DTs are explicit about what the >>> hardware is. If 2.0 is intended to be a superset of 1.1, you can have a >>> 1.1 fallback entry for the 2.0 hardware. >>> >> >> Ok, I will include the version in the compatibility strings, but if someone >> mentions "snps,ufshcd-1.1" only and the driver detects that the HW is 2.0 >> capable it will activate the 2.0 features independently of what mentioned in the >> DT, correct? > > As above, if that can be detected safely and reliably, then I don't see > a problem with that. Ok, thanks for the comments! I am working a bit in PCI next version patch and so I predict to produce a new version for UFS next Wednesday. Joao > > Thanks, > Mark. >