[PATCH v1 1/3] dt-bindings: mmc: Drop unused properties

[William Qiu]

On 2023/9/12 0:14, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 03:32:36PM +0200, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 12:03, William Qiu <william.qiu at starfivetech.com> wrote:
>> > On 2023/9/2 1:43, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 06:20:38PM +0100, Jessica Clarke wrote:
>> > >> On 1 Sep 2023, at 16:42, Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:33:13AM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On 2023/8/30 16:34, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 09:29:20AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> > >> >>>> On 30/08/2023 08:50, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:18:44AM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
>> > >> >>>>>> Due to the change of tuning implementation, it's no longer necessary to
>> > >> >>>>>> use the "starfive,sysreg" property in dts, so drop the relevant
>> > >> >>>>>> description in dt-bindings here.
>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >> >>>>> How does changing your software implantation invalidate a description of
>> > >> >>>>> the hardware?
>> > >> >>>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Which is kind of proof that this syscon was just to substitute
>> > >> >>>> incomplete hardware description (e.g. missing clocks and phys). We
>> > >> >>>> should have rejected it. Just like we should reject them in the future.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> :s I dunno what to do with this... I'm inclined to say not to remove it
>> > >> >>> from the binding or dts at all & only change the software.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>> There are just few cases where syscon is reasonable. All others is just
>> > >> >>>> laziness. It's not only starfivetech, of course. Several other
>> > >> >>>> contributors do the same.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> I'm not sure if laziness is fair, lack of understanding is usually more
>> > >> >>> likely.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> For this, I tend to keep it in binding, but remove it from required. Because
>> > >> >> we only modify the tuning implementation, it doesn't mean that this property
>> > >> >> need to be removed, it's just no longer be the required one.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Please only remove it from required if the current driver doesn't break
>> > >> > if the regmap is removed.
>> > >>
>> > >> Either way please make sure the documentation clearly states “never use
>> > >> this, if you’re using it you’re doing it wrong, this only exists
>> > >> because it was wrongly used in the past”. Otherwise people writing
>> > >> drivers for other OSes will probably use it too thinking they need to.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe we should just delete it if the impact is going to be negligible,
>> > > sounds like you're not using it in FreeBSD, which was part of what I was
>> > > worried about. Guess it depends on what Emil & the distro heads think.
>> > Hi Conor,
>> >
>> > After discussing it with our colleagues, we decided that deleting it was the best
>> > course of action. Since there will no longer be a related implementation of
>> > "starfive,sysreg" in future drivers, even if the dt-binding is described, it will
>> > be "never use", so I think it should be deleted.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> 
>> The device tree should be a description of the hardware and there
>> really is a 'u0_sdio_data_strobe_phase_ctrl' field in the sysreg
>> registers[1] on the JH7110 that seems to do _something_ related to the
>> sdio interface. So I don't think the fact that the Linux driver no
>> longer uses it is a good reason to remove it, but if there are some
>> other pragmatic reasons to do so then I'm fine with it. Removing it
>> from the list of required properties should be fine though.
> 
> SGTM. Can you update the patch to do that please William?
> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.

OK, I will update the patch as suggested by Emil.

Best Regards,
William