Hello Quentin,
On 2024-04-10 10:47, Quentin Schulz wrote:
On 4/9/24 21:30, Dragan Simic wrote:
On 2024-04-09 18:30, Jonas Karlman wrote:
On 2024-04-09 18:02, Quentin Schulz wrote:
On 4/9/24 17:58, Jonas Karlman wrote:
Agree that implying HS200 does not fully make sense, however it was
part
of the original Linux binding when HS400 was added in v3.16-rc1 [1]
so I
think that this is the expected behavior and changing it may be an
ABI
breakage.
I'm not advocating undoing the kernel "hack", but rather make it so
that
we add hs200 to DTs where it's actually supported instead of doing
the
same hack the kernel does. In that case, we wouldn't need the hack
anymore.
I will add a patch that adds the missing mmc-hs200 props to affected
rk3588 boards, nanopc-t4 and quartzpro64 in v2 of the "rockchip:
rk35xx:
Miscellaneous fixes and updates" series.
Also turns out the issue with those boards was because of my other
"mmc:
rockchip_sdhci: Revert 4 blocks PIO mode read limit for RK35xx"
patch,
so will need to rework that revert some more before posting a v2 of
that
patch.
For this patch it is fully up to the maintainers if U-Boot wants to
mimic Linux kernel or not.
I think that the logic used in the Linux kernel should be followed,
because one of the goals should be to add as few "touches" to the
upstream DT files in U-Boot as possible.
I was suggesting to fix the upstream DT files as well.
I see, but I think there's no need for that, as I already explained
further in my other response.
