On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:34:42 +0100
David Vrabel wrote:
>
> It can be done per-card, the switch to the lower voltage just needs to
> be deferred. Initially set the voltage to a standard one that's
> supported by the card and host. After the card is fully initialized and
> enumerated, have a hoo
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:56:28 +0200
> Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Philip Langdale wrote:
>>> Interesting. But that means that Ohad's patch doesn't make much sense;
>>> his uses the MMC low voltage OCR bit in an SDIO context. So either, the
>>
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:56:28 +0200
Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Philip Langdale wrote:
> > Interesting. But that means that Ohad's patch doesn't make much sense;
> > his uses the MMC low voltage OCR bit in an SDIO context. So either, the
> > patch is wrong, or he's de
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Philip Langdale wrote:
> Interesting. But that means that Ohad's patch doesn't make much sense;
> his uses the MMC low voltage OCR bit in an SDIO context. So either, the
> patch is wrong, or he's dealing with out-of-spec hardware.
Yes, the hardware is out-of-spec.
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:11:29 +0100
David Vrabel wrote:
>
> In the 3.00 spec, OCR bit 24 is S18R (Signalling 1.8V request). This
> is outside of the VDD region (bits 0:23). So I think we can support
> non standard DS/HS (Default Speed/High Speed) cards that report 1.8V
> operation (in the VDD r
Philip Langdale wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:38:26 +0200
> Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
>>> In practice, I expect that the timings are close enough that this
>>> will work anyway, but I think the situation is analogous to HS-MMC
>>> vs HS-SD. There the timings are slightly different and you felt it
>
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:38:26 +0200
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> >
> > In practice, I expect that the timings are close enough that this
> > will work anyway, but I think the situation is analogous to HS-MMC
> > vs HS-SD. There the timings are slightly different and you felt it
> > was enough to justify
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:10:13 -0700
Philip Langdale wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:37:32 +0200
> Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
> > I must have missed that part of discussion. If the voltage fully
> > overlaps with the MMC definition, then I don't see the controllers
> > having to be designed explicitl
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:37:32 +0200
Pierre Ossman wrote:
> I must have missed that part of discussion. If the voltage fully
> overlaps with the MMC definition, then I don't see the controllers
> having to be designed explicitly for SD 3.0. If not, then we probably
> need a new voltage bit for the
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:20:38 -0400
Philip Langdale wrote:
>
> My understanding from the previous discussion was that SD 3.0 (and
> presumably
> a matching SDHCI 3.0) fully define the low voltage range. As such, a
> controller
> that is documented to conform to this spec, or is otherwise document
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:28:33 +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:25:48 -0700
> Philip Langdale wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Ok, that sounds reasonable, but my concern is a controller that
>> publishes support for MMC_VDD_165_195 for mmc cards but doesn't
>> claim support fo
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:25:48 -0700
Philip Langdale wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Ok, that sounds reasonable, but my concern is a controller that
> publishes support for MMC_VDD_165_195 for mmc cards but doesn't
> claim support for SDIO cards - particularly considering the
> signalling implications y
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 03:59:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:10:48 +0100
> Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> > >
> > > + if ((ocr & MMC_VDD_165_195) && !(host->caps & MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195)) {
> > > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: SDIO card claims to support the "
> > > +
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:09:52 +0100
David Vrabel wrote:
> Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
> >
> > To allow the usage of MMC_VDD_165_195, host capability
> > MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195 is introduced. This is necessary
> > because MMC_VDD_165_195 is currently reserved/undefined.
>
> The h
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:10:48 +0100
Matt Fleming wrote:
> >
> > + if ((ocr & MMC_VDD_165_195) && !(host->caps & MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195)) {
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: SDIO card claims to support the "
> > + "incompletely defined 'low voltage range'. This "
> > +
Hi Matt,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> Have you got patches that add this capability to the TI 127x and ZOOM2
> board setup files?
Sure, but I planned on waiting for the discussion on this to conclude.
Seems like it is moot now.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this
Hi David,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:09 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
...
> That's a fair amount of work so perhaps in the interim something like this:
>
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
> @@ -494,6 +494,9 @@ int mmc_attach_sdio(struct mmc_host *host, u32 ocr)
>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 07:58:34PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> [I should really ditch my mailer, I know. hope it's the last attempt. Sorry x
> 2]
> ---
> From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
>
> To allow the usage of MMC_VDD_165_195, host capability
> MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195 is introduced. This is necessary
> be
Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
>
> To allow the usage of MMC_VDD_165_195, host capability
> MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195 is introduced. This is necessary
> because MMC_VDD_165_195 is currently reserved/undefined.
The host already reports what voltages it supports (in
mmc_host::ocr_avail) so
[I should really ditch my mailer, I know. hope it's the last attempt. Sorry x 2]
---
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
To allow the usage of MMC_VDD_165_195, host capability
MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195 is introduced. This is necessary
because MMC_VDD_165_195 is currently reserved/undefined.
Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-C
[resending due to mailer issues - sorry]
---
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
To allow the usage of MMC_VDD_165_195, host capability
MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195 is introduced. This is necessary
because MMC_VDD_165_195 is currently reserved/undefined.
Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen
---
drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c |
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
To allow the usage of MMC_VDD_165_195, host capability
MMC_CAP_VDD_165_195 is introduced. This is necessary
because MMC_VDD_165_195 is currently reserved/undefined.
Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen
---
drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c |7 +++
include/linux/mmc/host.h |1 +
22 matches
Mail list logo
