[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1953691e-4179-92c3-efa9-f10ccd3cad00@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:58:44 +0300
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@...com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Fix SDHCI_RESET_ALL for CQHCI
On 18/10/22 19:59, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 07:13:28PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 18/10/22 06:57, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> So like these other patches, deactivate CQHCI when resetting the
>>> controller. Also, move around the DT/caps handling, because
>>> sdhci_setup_host() performs resets before we've initialized CQHCI. This
>>> is the pattern followed in other SDHCI/CQHCI drivers.
>>
>> Did you consider just checking host->mmc->cqe_private like
>> sdhci_cqhci_reset() ?
>
> I did not, although I am doing so now.
>
> My first thought is that this feels a bit too private. Is the host
> driver supposed to be memorizing the details of the CQHCI layer?
Some drivers need to access CQHCI registers and get the reference
to cqhci_host from cqe_private, so that is already accepted.
>
> But on the plus side, that would remove some contortions needed here
> (and also in sdhci-brcmstb.c).
>
> Here's another option I previously considered: teaching
> cqhci_deactivate() to check cqe_private itself. That would have the same
> benefits, while keeping the private details in cqhci-core.c. How do you
> like that?
I don't mind either way.
>
> (Tiny downside: cqhci-core.c got its rename in v5.12, so backporting
> this to -stable would get slightly more difficult.)
>
> Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists