Messages in this thread | |
åš 2017/6/22 19:51, Arnd Bergmann åé: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Bu Tao <butao@huawei.com> wrote: >> åš 2017/6/17 5:51, Arnd Bergmann åé: >>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Bu Tao <butao@hisilicon.com> wrote: >>>> +Optional properties for board device: >>>> +- ufs-hi3660-use-rate-B : specifies UFS rate-B >>>> +- ufs-hi3660-broken-fastauto : specifies no fastauto >>>> +- ufs-hi3660-use-HS-GEAR3 : specifies UFS HS-GEAR3 >>>> +- ufs-hi3660-use-HS-GEAR2 : specifies UFS HS-GEAR2 >>>> +- ufs-hi3660-use-HS-GEAR1 : specifies UFS HS-GEAR1 >>>> +- ufs-hi3660-broken-clk-gate-bypass : specifies no clk-gate >>>> +- ufs-hi3660-use-one-line : specifies UFS use one line work >>>> +- reset-gpio : specifies to reset devices >>> >>> >>> Some of these sound rather generic and might apply to UFS implementations >>> other than hi3660, so I'd suggest adding them to the base ufs binding with >>> a generic name instead. >>> >>> Any DT properties that might be useful across multiple implementations >>> should be parsed in generic code that gets called by the individual >>> drivers, >>> and then the properties that are specific to the integration work done by >>> hisilicon should be prefixed with "hisilicon,", but not normally with the >>> SoC name: it is quite possible that another SoC will be derived from this >>> chip and it should reuse the properties. >> >> >> I do not know wheher other SoC need to use the optional properties as >> abover. So here the name of the optional properties has "hi3660". > > They should not have "hi3660" in their names either way, independent > of where they are used.
Oh, change the "hi3660" to "hisilicon"? e.g. ufs-hi3660-use-rate-B --> ufs-hisilicon-use-rate-B > >>> (note: this is different from the value of the "compatible" property that >>> is meant to be as specific as possible". >>> >>> Also, please clarify how your binding relates to the ufshcd binding >>> in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt: does >>> hi3660 implement any registers that are shared with ufshcd, or does >>> it use the same physical interface with a different register set? >> >> No, only show how to use the dt-binding for hi3660 SoC > > My question was about the hardware: does hi3660 implement ufshcd > or not?
YES > > Arnd >
| |