[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57f240af-7e99-4bc1-a2c5-415441aa5f0b@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 09:34:30 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@...e.com>
Cc: adrian.hunter@...el.com, alcooperx@...il.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, conor+dt@...nel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, florian.fainelli@...adcom.com,
jonathan@...pberrypi.com, kamal.dasu@...adcom.com,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
phil@...pberrypi.com, robh@...nel.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mmc: sdhci-brcmstb: Add BCM2712 SD Express support
Le 14/04/2024 à 00:14, Andrea della Porta a écrit :
> Broadcom BCM2712 SDHCI controller is SD Express capable. Add support
> for sde capability where the implementation is based on downstream driver,
> diverging from it in the way that init_sd_express callback is invoked:
> in downstream the sdhci_ops structure has been augmented with a new
> function ptr 'init_sd_express' that just propagate the call to the
> driver specific callback so that the callstack from a structure
> standpoint is mmc_host_ops -> sdhci_ops. The drawback here is in the
> added level of indirection (the newly added init_sd_express is
> redundant) and the sdhci_ops structure declaration has to be changed.
> To overcome this the presented approach consist in patching the mmc_host_ops
> init_sd_express callback to point directly to the custom function defined in
> this driver (see struct brcmstb_match_priv).
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta-IBi9RG/b67k@...lic.gmane.org>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig | 1 +
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-brcmstb.c | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
..
> + if (brcmstb_priv->sde_pcie) {
> + struct of_changeset changeset;
> + static struct property okay_property = {
> + .name = "status",
> + .value = "okay",
> + .length = 5,
> + };
> +
> + /* Enable the pcie controller */
> + of_changeset_init(&changeset);
> + ret = of_changeset_update_property(&changeset,
> + brcmstb_priv->sde_pcie,
> + &okay_property);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "%s: failed to update property - %d\n", __func__,
> + ret);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + ret = of_changeset_apply(&changeset);
> + }
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s -> %d\n", __func__, ret);
Is this really useful?
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
..
> @@ -468,6 +581,24 @@ static int sdhci_brcmstb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (res)
> goto err;
>
> + priv->sde_1v8 = devm_regulator_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "sde-1v8");
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->sde_1v8))
> + priv->flags &= ~BRCMSTB_PRIV_FLAGS_HAS_SD_EXPRESS;
> +
> + iomem = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 2);
> + if (iomem) {
> + priv->sde_ioaddr = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, iomem);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->sde_ioaddr))
> + priv->sde_ioaddr = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + iomem = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 3);
> + if (iomem) {
> + priv->sde_ioaddr2 = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, iomem);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->sde_ioaddr2))
> + priv->sde_ioaddr = NULL;
sde_ioaddr2 ?
> + }
> +
> priv->pinctrl = devm_pinctrl_get(&pdev->dev);
> if (IS_ERR(priv->pinctrl)) {
> no_pinctrl = true;
> @@ -478,8 +609,16 @@ static int sdhci_brcmstb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> no_pinctrl = true;
> }
>
> - if (no_pinctrl )
> + priv->pins_sdex = pinctrl_lookup_state(priv->pinctrl, "sd-express");
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->pins_sdex)) {
> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "No pinctrl sd-express state\n");
> + no_pinctrl = true;
Indentation looks too large.
> + }
> +
> + if (no_pinctrl || !priv->sde_ioaddr || !priv->sde_ioaddr2) {
> priv->pinctrl = NULL;
> + priv->flags &= ~BRCMSTB_PRIV_FLAGS_HAS_SD_EXPRESS;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Automatic clock gating does not work for SD cards that may
..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists