On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:28:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:26:22PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:15:44PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote: > > > > In cases where the card is non-removable then polling doesn't make > > > > sense. > > > > > > We have the non-removable property to describe that, so we can also look > > > at that. > > > > > > > So it doesn't make sense to tie the test mode workaround into the > > > > broken-cd > > > > property, even though I agree the nature of the defect fits under the > > > > notion > > > > of the CD being broken. > > > > > > Maybe not solely on broken-cd, but I think that we dont necessarily need > > > a new > > > DT property. As above, broken-cd, non-removable, and the compatible > > > string may > > > together give the kernel enough information to choose the right thing to > > > do. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mark. > > > > I'm not sure if I understand your suggestion completely. Are you suggesting > > setting both the broken-cd and non-removable properties? That would make > > sense, > > but my understanding was that the two properities are not meant to > > co-exist. In > > /Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt it states that only one > > should > > be supplied. Don't the two properties conflict with each other? > > They do for the cases that exist today, but given we're updating the document > anyway, we could simply clarify the cases in which the two can sanely co-exist > (e.g. for this particular IP block). > > Thanks, > Mark.
That makes sense. I'll change the documentation for broken-cd and non-removable in the IP specific document and change the driver accordingly.
