Re: [PATCH 09/14] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6115: Add UFS nodes

[Iskren Chernev]

On 9/1/22 19:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/09/2022 10:24, Iskren Chernev wrote:
>> The SM6115 comes with UFS support, so add the related UFS and UFS PHY
>> nodes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
>> index cde963c56ac9..491fffff8aa1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi
>> @@ -620,6 +620,76 @@ opp-202000000 {
>>  			};
>>  		};
>>
>> +		ufs_mem_hc: ufshc@4804000 {
>> +			compatible = "qcom,sm6115-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc",
>> +				     "jedec,ufs-2.0";
>> +			reg = <0x4804000 0x3000>, <0x4810000 0x8000>;
>> +			reg-names = "std", "ice";
>
> I could imagine that testing DTS against existing bindings might miss a
> lot, because we have still a lot of errors. But at least I would expect
> you test your DTS against your own bindings, which you submit here (and
> previously).
>
> You just wrote that ice is not allowed.

OK, I'm an idiot. I didn't run the bindings checks, not against existing
bindings or my bindings or whatever. It's my fault.

Ice should be allowed, I fixed the bindings in v2.

For the record, running dtbs_checks is a PITA, not only because of the
thousands of warnings in unrelated code, but because it takes forever.

Maybe the docs should be updated with instructions on how to run it on a single
(or a small subset) of DTBs. I had to comment out a lot of Makefile lines to
focus it on mine. It would really help if the binding check works more like
a compiler, not some magic spell hidden in a bunch of Makefiles.

I'll list all remaining issues with description/explanation in v2. The fact
that some bindings break on all DTBs present doesn't help either.

>> +			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 356 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> +			phys = <&ufs_mem_phy_lanes>;
>> +			phy-names = "ufsphy";
>> +			lanes-per-direction = <1>;
>> +			#reset-cells = <1>;
>> +			resets = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_BCR>;
>> +			reset-names = "rst";
>> +
>> +			power-domains = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_GDSC>;
>> +			iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x100 0>;
>> +
>> +			clocks = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
>> +				 <&gcc GCC_SYS_NOC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
>> +				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AHB_CLK>,
>> +				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_UNIPRO_CORE_CLK>,
>> +				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_ICE_CORE_CLK>,
>> +				 <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>,
>> +				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_TX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>,
>> +				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_RX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>;
>> +			clock-names = "core_clk",
>> +				      "bus_aggr_clk",
>> +				      "iface_clk",
>> +				      "core_clk_unipro",
>> +				      "core_clk_ice",
>> +				      "ref_clk",
>> +				      "tx_lane0_sync_clk",
>> +				      "rx_lane0_sync_clk";
>> +
>> +			freq-table-hz = <50000000 200000000>,
>> +					<0 0>,
>> +					<0 0>,
>> +					<37500000 150000000>,
>> +					<75000000 300000000>,
>> +					<0 0>,
>> +					<0 0>,
>> +					<0 0>;
>> +
>> +			non-removable;
>
> Is it allowed property?

I dropped it.

>> +			status = "disabled";
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		ufs_mem_phy: phy@4807000 {
>> +			compatible = "qcom,sm6115-qmp-ufs-phy";
>> +			reg = <0x4807000 0x1c4>;
>> +			#address-cells = <1>;
>> +			#size-cells = <1>;
>> +			ranges;
>> +
>> +			clocks = <&gcc GCC_UFS_CLKREF_CLK>,
>> +				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_PHY_AUX_CLK>;
>> +			clock-names = "ref", "ref_aux";
>> +
>> +			resets = <&ufs_mem_hc 0>;
>> +			reset-names = "ufsphy";
>> +			status = "disabled";
>> +
>> +			ufs_mem_phy_lanes: lanes@4807400 {
>> +				reg = <0x4807400 0x098>,
>> +				      <0x4807600 0x130>,
>> +				      <0x4807c00 0x16c>;
>> +				#phy-cells = <0>;
>> +			};
>> +		};
>> +
>> +
>
> Just one blank line.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof