On 2/8/2016 4:15 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:36:52PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:

quoted

Hi Mark,

On 2/8/2016 3:30 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:17:11PM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote:

quoted

Hi Mark and Arnd,
Are you saying that a user that puts "snps,ufshcd-1.1"
in the DT compatibility string disables the UFS 2.0 in the core driver despite
the controller is 2.0? Please clarify.

If you can consistently and safely detect that the HW is 2.0, using 2.0
functionality is fine.

Regardless, you should have a -1.1 compatible string for the 1.1 HW, and
a -2.0 string for the 2.0 HW, so that DTs are explicit about what the
hardware is. If 2.0 is intended to be a superset of 1.1, you can have a
1.1 fallback entry for the 2.0 hardware.

Ok, I will include the version in the compatibility strings, but if someone
mentions "snps,ufshcd-1.1" only and the driver detects that the HW is 2.0
capable it will activate the 2.0 features independently of what mentioned in the
DT, correct?

As above, if that can be detected safely and reliably, then I don't see
a problem with that.

Ok, thanks for the comments! I am working a bit in PCI next version patch and so
I predict to produce a new version for UFS next Wednesday.

Joao

Thanks,
Mark.