From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] phy: qcom-ufs: remove failure when rx/tx_iface_clk are absent Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:18:52 -0700 Message-ID: <3ecf01cc-b9b1-046e-57b8-2bb855b9ac5d@codeaurora.org> References: <1476800897-19898-1-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> <1476800897-19898-2-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:58686 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932872AbcJRVSy (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:18:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1476800897-19898-2-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Vivek Gautam , kishon@ti.com, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, vinholikatti@gmail.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: subhashj@codeaurora.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Yaniv Gardi On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > From: Yaniv Gardi > > Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk > are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization > fail, but rather just report with debug message. > > Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi > Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam > --- Shouldn't we have a different compatible string on future UFS phys so that we know which number of clks and what clks are required? That's how we typically handle clk configurations changing. Making them optional should really only be needed when they're really optional, i.e. things will work fine if they're there or not. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project