Messages in this thread | |
åš 2017/6/22 20:15, Arnd Bergmann åé: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bu Tao <butao@huawei.com> wrote: >> 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: >>>> >>>> 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 > > No, just 'use-rate-B', no prefix for this. > >>>>> (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 > > Ok, then the properties should be documented as optional in the > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt file for anything > that has a proper interpretation in the context of the generic ufshcd > driver. > > Arnd >
OK I will modify this and update the patch soon.
| |