Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <865ff6bc-95a2-8b39-5cf2-bb2d3f592c5a@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:16:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: delete incorrect ufs
 interconnect fields
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@linaro.org>,
        Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220407172145.31903-1-jonathan@marek.ca>
 <e41c26c2-8aa4-cfd2-27b0-eb011f45eda0@linaro.org>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <e41c26c2-8aa4-cfd2-27b0-eb011f45eda0@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07/04/2022 21:40, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 4/7/22 20:21, Jonathan Marek wrote:
>> Upstream sm8450.dtsi has #interconnect-cells = <2>; so these are wrong.
>> Ignored and undocumented with upstream UFS driver so delete for now.

This is the upstream and they are documented here, although as pointed
by Vladimir this was rather a reverse-documentation. The documentation
might be incorrect, but then the bindings should be corrected instead of
only modifying the DTS.

> 
> Basically the description was added by a commit 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs:
> qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema").
> 
> It's questionable, if an example in the new yaml file is totally correct
> in connection to the discussed issue.

To be honest - the example probably is not correct, because it was based
on existing DTS without your patch. :)

Another question is whether the interconnect properties are here correct
at all. I assumed that DTS is correct because it should describe the
hardware, even if driver does not use it. However maybe that was a false
assumption...


Best regards,
Krzysztof