Hi,
On 12/15/2013 05:21 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 03:20:19PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
<snip>
+static const struct of_device_id sunxi_mmc_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-mmc", },
+ { .compatible = "allwinner,sun5i-mmc", },
Please use sun5i-a13-mmc as your compatible.
Can you explain a bit why? In essence currently we have
2 versions of the mmc controller, those found on sun4i
and those found on sun5i and sun7i. I thought that the
norm was to use the oldest soc version in which a revision
of an ip-block first appears as the compatible string ?
Indeed.
Note I've tested this with both a13 and a10s SOCs, if we
add a sun5i-a13-mmc we should also add a sun5i-a10s-mmc
and a sun5i-a20-mmc, or would that then be sun7i-a20-mmc?
And the A13 has been the first SoC in the sun5i family, hence why we
should use sun5i-a13 as the prefix here. If the A10s and A20 would not
have been compatible with the A13 MMC controller, we would have used
sun5i-a10s-mmc and sun7i-a20-mmc, respectively.
Ah I see, you meant s/allwinner,sun5i-mmc/allwinner,sun5i-a13-mmc/
I interpreted your remark as adding an extra allwinner,sun5i-a13-mmc
compatible string. Using allwinner,sun5i-a13-mmc instead of
allwinner,sun5i-mmc makes sense. David having us both editing the
driver at the same time seems counter-productive, can you take care
of this too?
To me just having sun5i-mmc for sun5i+ socs seems simpler.
And if we ever find out that A10s or A13 differs in some way, we will
end up introducing a compatible that will be sun5i-a10s-mmc, along
with the sun5i-mmc we already have, which is not really the more
consistent thing we would have done.
<snip>
+ mmc->ops = &sunxi_mmc_ops;
+ mmc->max_blk_count = 8192;
+ mmc->max_blk_size = 4096;
+ mmc->max_segs = PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(struct
sunxi_idma_des);
+ mmc->max_seg_size = (1 << host->idma_des_size_bits);
+ mmc->max_req_size = mmc->max_seg_size * mmc->max_segs;
+ /* 400kHz ~ 50MHz */
+ mmc->f_min = 400000;
+ mmc->f_max = 50000000;
Hmmm, the tables earlier seem to suggest it can do much more than that.
I know, but this is what the allwinner android kernels are using, actually
in case of sdc3 they are putting 200000000 in f_max (as that is often
used for sdio cards) but then later in set_ios they clamp the passed
in clock to 47000000 Mhz, so I seriously doubt that 200Mhz has actually
worked. Hence I've simply gone for a safe range for now. If someone has
cards capable of doing 200 MHz we could certainly run various tests and
try to improve this, but for now this seems a sane range to start with.
That's probably something that you should mention in your comment then :)
Good point, David ?
<snip>
Hmmm, I see no implementation for this function. Didn't you forget
a file here? (and it should probably be a separate patch anyway).
The implementation is part of Emilio's clk branch, but he forgot
to add a header for it, so I'm fixing that up here, I guess this
should go through Emlio's tree as a separate patch.
As far as I know, this work has never been posted, let alone
merged.
I don't know if it has been posted, but it has been in his tree for a
while now. Anyways I'll send him a standalone patch for the clk/sunxi.h
file.
> Anyway, the dependencies you have is something that you should
> mention in your cover letter, so that we know what to merge, in which
> order, and when to merge it.
Right, my bad, sorry. I was so happy I was finally ready to send the patch
upstream (I finally had fixed everything on my todo list), I rushed the
cover letter a bit. I was planning on putting things like this in there,
as well as why we didn't try to extend the mmc-dw driver, but I forgot.
Thanks & Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
