Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] dt-bindings: scsi: ufs: add document for hi3660-ufs

[Bu Tao]

å 2017/6/22 20:15, Arnd Bergmann åé:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bu Tao <butao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > å 2017/6/22 19:51, Arnd Bergmann åé:
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Bu Tao <butao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > å 2017/6/17 5:51, Arnd Bergmann åé:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Bu Tao <butao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.