On 25 August 2016 at 22:46, Zach Brown <zach.br...@ni.com> wrote: > 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).
No, please! Depending on the SDHCI variant there is already some difference on how broken-cd is treated. Let's not add yet another, as I think it will be too complicated for people to understand the bindings. >> >> 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. I rather have a new DT binding specific for this case. Perhaps there's a better name than "fake-cd". How about "force-cd", or if someone can come up with a better name. Kind regards Uffe
