[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191112211950.GB3402@kunai>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:19:50 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@...adit-jv.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eugeniu Rosca <roscaeugeniu@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: mmc: Add
'fixed-emmc-driver-type-hs{200,400}'
Hi everyone,
> > The first question which pops up in my mind is related to the meaning
> > of each item. The option which I envision based on your proposal is:
> >
> > * minItems: 1
> > * maxItems: 2
> > * Item[0]: Presumably equivalent to the current
> > "fixed-emmc-driver-type", i.e. the strength value applied in both
> > HS200 and HS400 modes.
> > * Item[1] (optional): Presumably equivalent to
> > "fixed-emmc-driver-type-hs400" proposed in this series. If this
> > element is provided, the first one should likely change its role
> > and become an equivalent of "fixed-emmc-driver-type-hs200" from
> > this series.
> > + Pro: Full backward compatibility. No need to touch the existing
> > users of "fixed-emmc-driver-type".
> > - Con: Not sure we have such DT bindings which dynamically change
> > their semantics based on the usage pattern.
> > - Con: Can't easily achieve the same flexibility as accomplished in
> > this series. For example, current implementation allows users to
> > define each of the three parameters (i.e. HSx00-agnostic drive
> > strength, HS200 and HS400 specific drive strengths) individually,
> > as well as in all possible combinations. This might be needed if,
> > in certain HSx00 mode, users still need to rely on the
> > RAW/unmodified drive strength. I am unsure if/how this can be
> > achieved with an array OF property with a constant or variable
> > number of elements (I try to sketch one solution below).
> >
> > One option to achieve a similar degree of flexibility by using an array
> > OF property (instead of several u32 properties) would be to agree on a
> > convention based on magic values, i.e. below DT one-liner could be an
> > example of providing solely the "fixed-emmc-driver-type-hs200" value
> > (based on the agreement that 0xFF values are discarded by the driver):
> >
> > fixed-emmc-driver-type = <0xFF 0x1 0xFF>;
>
> I don't understand why you have 3 values instead of 2.
Because he sketches maximum flexibility here. Have a non-HS (default)
value, one for HS200, and one for HS400:
fixed-emmc-driver-type = <[default] [HS200] [HS400]>;
> I would just use -1 if you want to ignore an entry. If that's the common
'-1' sounds good to me, too.
> case, then I'd stick with what you originally proposed. If rare, then I
> think an array is the better route.
What I have seen so far: setting drive strength alone is more on the
rare side. Setting specific values for default and HS200/400 seems even
more rare to me. With this patchset, it is the first time I hear about
it.
Yet, my experience might be a bit limited, maybe others (Hi Ulf! ;)) can add
their views, too?
Regards,
Wolfram
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists