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

[Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>]

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@kernel.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml | 2 ++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > > index f2d6298d926c..1f1d286749c0 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/qcom,ufs.yaml
> > > > > @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ properties:
> > > > >      minItems: 8
> > > > >      maxItems: 11
> > > > >  
> > > > > +  dma-coherent: true
> > > > > +
> > > > 
> > > > This property is not applicable to all SoCs. So setting true here will make it
> > > > valid for all.
> > > 
> > > 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?

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

Thanks,
Mani

> It's the devicetree which is supposed to describe hardware, you don't
> have to encode it also in the binding.
> 
> Johan

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்