Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: allow 'dma-coherent' property

[Johan Hovold]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 06:30:48PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 01:27:34PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 05:50:18PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 01:07:16PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 05:29:06PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > > > UFS controllers may be cache coherent and must be marked as such in the
> > > > > > devicetree to avoid data corruption.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is specifically needed on recent Qualcomm platforms like SC8280XP.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>

> > > > Yes, it would be a valid, but it will only be added to the DTs of SoCs
> > > > that actually require it. No need to re-encode the dtsi in the binding.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > But if you make a property valid in the binding then it implies that anyone
> > > could add it to DTS which is wrong. You should make this property valid for
> > > SoCs that actually support it.
> > 
> > No, it's not wrong.
> > 
> > Note that the binding only requires 'compatible' and 'regs', all other
> > properties are optional, and you could, for example, add a
> > 'reset' property to a node for a device which does not have a reset
> > without the DT validation failing.
> > 
> 
> Then what is the point of devicetree validation using bindings?

You're still making sure that no properties are added that are not
documented, number of clocks, names of clocks, etc.

> There is also a comment from Krzysztof: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/11/24/390

Speaking of Krzysztof:

	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221204094717.74016-5-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/

Johan