Hi,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Vivek Gautam <vivek.gau...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Stephen Boyd <sb...@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>> From: Yaniv Gardi <yga...@codeaurora.org> >>> >>> 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 <yga...@codeaurora.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gau...@codeaurora.org> >>> --- >> >> 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. > > Correct. It makes sense to have different compatible strings for different > versions. > I will gather more information about previous versions that required > this clock, and update as suggested. The tx/rx_face clocks are not available on some of the recent chips, such as msm8996. Older chips with this 14nm ufs phy had handles for tx/rx_iface clocks. So, i will add new compatible string for msm8996 - "qcom,msm8996-ufs-phy-qmp-14nm" This can be used with chips further on that are going to use the same ufs phy. Regards Vivek -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
