[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210507062416.GD23749@aspeedtech.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 14:24:17 +0800
From: Steven Lee <steven_lee@...eedtech.com>
To: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
CC: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ryan Chen <ryanchen.aspeed@...il.com>,
"moderated list:ASPEED SD/MMC DRIVER" <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"moderated list:ASPEED SD/MMC DRIVER" <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/ASPEED MACHINE SUPPORT"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hongwei Zhang <Hongweiz@....com>,
Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>,
Chin-Ting Kuo <chin-ting_kuo@...eedtech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mmc: sdhci-of-aspeed: Assert/Deassert reset
signal before probing eMMC
The 05/07/2021 09:32, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 May 2021, at 19:54, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 06:03:12PM +0800, Steven Lee wrote:
> > > + if (info) {
> > > + if (info->flag & PROBE_AFTER_ASSET_DEASSERT) {
> > > + sdc->rst = devm_reset_control_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> >
> > Please use devm_reset_control_get_exclusive() or
> > devm_reset_control_get_optional_exclusive().
> >
> > > + if (!IS_ERR(sdc->rst)) {
> >
> > Please just return errors here instead of ignoring them.
> > The reset_control_get_optional variants return NULL in case the
> > device node doesn't contain a resets phandle, in case you really
> > consider this reset to be optional even though the flag is set?
>
> It feels like we should get rid of the flag and leave it to the
> devicetree.
>
Do you mean adding a flag, for instance, "mmc-reset" in the
device tree and call of_property_read_bool() in aspeed_sdc_probe()?
> I'm still kind of surprised it's not something we want to do for the
> 2400 and 2500 as well.
>
Per discussion with the chip designer, AST2400 and AST2500 doesn't need
this implementation since the chip design is different to AST2600.
> Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists