On 27 August 2016 at 00:29, Zach Brown <zach.br...@ni.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:42:38AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> 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. >> > > Shawn Lin pointed out that there might be instances of the arasan controller > that don't have the behavior the patch addresses. Having a new DT binding > specific for this case would avoid needing to maintain a list of controllers > that need the fix. >
Okay! >> >> >> >> 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 > > I've been trying to come up with a better name. Here are a few ideas > cd-not-wired > needs-test-cd > fails-without-force-cd Yeah, we could probably announce a naming competition for this. :-) Just select one of them and try to get an ack from Rob/Mark then I will pick up the change. Kind regards Uffe
