Re: [PATCH v5 11/24] scsi: ufs: mediatek: Rework probe function

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 09/01/26 10:16, Peter Wang (王信友) ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 09:43 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 09/01/2026 09:38, Peter Wang (王信友) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 08:24 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 09/01/2026 07:22, Peter Wang (王信友) wrote:
> > > > > Is it sufficient for us to supplement the ABI document?
> > > > > This ABI might affect the ability to reset and recover after
> > > > > an UFS error in upstream world.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In normal case yes, but I cannot imagine arguments justifying
> > > > your
> > > > usage
> > > > of TI properties. Basically it would not pass review.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Krzysztof
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, this part is indeed because MediaTek’s reset hardware
> > > implementation is the same as TI’s.

No, MediaTek's reset hardware implementation is not the same as Texas Instruments.
It was *very similar* to TI in the past (years ago, around the MT6795 Helio
generation times).

MediaTek's reset controller - by hardware - is definitely different from the one
found in TI SoCs.

Regards,
Angelo

> > > That’s why we used “compatible”
> > > instead of actually implementing MediaTek’s own reset controller.
> >
> > So that's another purely downstream code. Additionally very poor
> > quality
> > downstream code.
> >
> > > So, are you suggesting that we upstream a MediaTek reset
> > > controller,
> > > even though the code is almost identical to TI’s?
> >
> > If you ask about DT, this is already answered in writing bindings
> > document. You cannot use someone else's compatible. Was also re-
> > iterated
> > on mailing list bazillions of times.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
>
> Okay, we will correct these incorrect usages.
>
> Thanks
> Peter