Re: [PATCH 5/5] scsi: dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Fix warning for sdm845 by adding reg-names

[Luca Weiss]

On Fri Jun 23, 2023 at 2:31 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/06/2023 13:30, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > There is a warning on dtbs check for sdm845, amongst other platforms,
> > about the reg-names being unevaluated. Fix that by adding reg-names to
> > the clocks and reg properties check for such platforms.
> > 
> > Fixes: 462c5c0aa798 ("dt-bindings: ufs: qcom,ufs: convert to dtschema")
> > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > index 0209713d1f88..894b57117314 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > @@ -166,6 +166,10 @@ allOf:
> >          reg:
> >            minItems: 2
> >            maxItems: 2
> > +        reg-names:
> > +          items:
> > +            - const: std
> > +            - const: ice
>
> reg-names looks like a new property, so it should be defined in
> top-level and just constrained per-variant.
>
> Also there was similar approach:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-2-dc7a04699579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> but I guess no resends and it can be superseded.

Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to
find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with
my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten
forgotten.

With my private mailbox I just have a different folder for patches that
have been sent which I archive once they're applied, but with work GMail
I don't see how I can easily replicate this since it's also not grouping
threads properly.

Also patch 4/5 in this series has an equivalent from me:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221209-dt-binding-ufs-v2-3-dc7a04699579@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
^ this might also be preferable since I guess it doesn't break
dt_binding_check?

Regards
Luca

>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof