On 2 September 2014 17:49, Jean-Michel Hautbois <jean-michel.hautb...@vodalys.com> wrote: > This property is useful when we don't want to access boot partitions on eMMC > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Michel Hautbois <jean-michel.hautb...@vodalys.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt | 1 + > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c | 8 ++++++++ > include/linux/platform_data/mmc-esdhc-imx.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt > index 431716e..59cc854 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ Optional properties: > - mmc-hs200-1_2v: eMMC HS200 mode(1.2V I/O) is supported > - mmc-hs400-1_8v: eMMC HS400 mode(1.8V I/O) is supported > - mmc-hs400-1_2v: eMMC HS400 mode(1.2V I/O) is supported > +- no-boot-part : when preset, tells to access boot partitions > > *NOTE* on CD and WP polarity. To use common for all SD/MMC host controllers > line > polarity properties, we have to fix the meaning of the "normal" and > "inverted" > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c > b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c > index ccec0e3..439e663 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c > @@ -942,6 +942,11 @@ sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev, > if (of_property_read_u32(np, "fsl,delay-line", > &boarddata->delay_line)) > boarddata->delay_line = 0; > > + if (of_find_property(np, "no-boot-part", NULL)) > + boarddata->access_boot_part = false; > + else > + boarddata->access_boot_part = true; > + > return 0; > } > #else > @@ -1119,6 +1124,9 @@ static int sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > host->quirks2 |= SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V; > } > > + if (!boarddata->access_boot_part) > + host->mmc->caps2 |= MMC_CAP2_BOOTPART_NOACC; > +
Hmm, I don't think MMC_CAP2_BOOTPART_NOACC should have a DT binding. Does it describe the hardware in some form? Actually I would like to question why MMC_CAP2_BOOTPART_NOACC exists at all. If there are cards that don't supports the BOOT area, shouldn't we have a card quirk for it instead of a host cap? Maybe Adrian Hunter, how originally wrote the patch for adding MMC_CAP2_BOOTPART_NOACC, could help me understand the reasons behind it!? Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
