[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a736b773-d6e6-eb81-90d6-ebeab7b401cb@st.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:38:36 +0100
From: Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@...com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
<linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: mmci: add quirk property to add stm32 transfer
mode
hi Russell & Ulf
On 2/21/19 11:30 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:27:39AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:10:49AM +0100, Ludovic Barre wrote:
>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
>>>
>>> This patch series introduces a bitmap of hardware quirks that require
>>> some special action. This should reduce the number of boolean
>>> into variant structure.
>>> And adds quirk bit to define sdmmc specific transfer modes.
>>
>> Please find some other way to deal with these differences. As far as
>> I'm concerned, introducing a quirk bitmask such as what was done in
>> sdhci is a complete disaster and leads to long-term maintanability
>> problems.
>>
>> We already have a way to deal with variants in mmci.
>
> ... to finish what I was saying ...
>
> and I think that:
>
> if (variant->blksz_datactrl16)
> datactrl = variant->datactrl_dpsm_enable | (data->blksz << 16);
> else if (variant->blksz_datactrl4)
> datactrl = variant->datactrl_dpsm_enable | (data->blksz << 4);
> else
> datactrl = variant->datactrl_dpsm_enable | blksz_bits << 4;
>
> ought to become a variant function call which returns the appropriate
> datactrl value. This would shrink the amount of variant testing in this
> path, and also means that going forward we aren't facing an endlessly
> increasing number of tests here.
For blksz_datactrl case:
We could create an inline function for datactrl16 and blksz_datactrl4
which returns the appropriate datactrl value (specific for ux500v2 and
qcom). This function could be register in mmci_host_ops structure.
in mmci_start_data function we could call a common function which call a
hook if defined.
int mmci_dblksz(struct mmci_host *host)
{
if (host->ops && host->ops->dblksz)
return host->ops->dblk(host);
/* default data block size definition */
blksz_bits = ffs(data->blksz) - 1;
return blksz_bits << 4;
}
what do you think about it?
After, I'm afraid to multiply callback function in mmci_host_ops.
For stm32 transfer mode:
ditto, a callback function or I keep a boolean?
BR
Ludo
>
>>
>>>
>>> Ludovic Barre (2):
>>> mmc: mmci: introduce a quirks property into variant struct
>>> mmc: mmci: add quirk property to add stm32 transfer mode
>>>
>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 9 +++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>
>>
>> --
>> RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
>> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
>> According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists