[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8c6d37bb-8e07-4e44-bef1-f4376b54b853@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 09:18:46 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Sarthak Garg <quic_sartgarg@...cinc.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, quic_cang@...cinc.com,
quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com, quic_rampraka@...cinc.com,
quic_pragalla@...cinc.com, quic_sayalil@...cinc.com,
quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com, quic_sachgupt@...cinc.com,
quic_bhaskarv@...cinc.com, quic_narepall@...cinc.com, kernel@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] dt-bindings: mmc: qcom: Document level shifter
flag for SD card
On 20/05/2025 08:58, Sarthak Garg wrote:
>
>
> On 11/7/2024 3:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 01:35:03PM +0530, Sarthak Garg wrote:
>>> Introduce a flag to indicate if the Qualcomm platform has a level
>>> shifter for SD cards. With level shifter addition some extra delay is
>>> seen on RX data path leading to CRC errors. To compensate these delays
>>> and avoid CRC errors below things needs to be done:
>>>
>>> 1) Enable tuning for SDR50 mode
>>> 2) Limit HS mode frequency to 37.5MHz from 50MHz
>>>
>>> Add this flag for all targets with a level shifter to handle these
>>> issues for SD card.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sarthak Garg <quic_sartgarg@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.yaml | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>
>> This wasn't tested, so just short review - platform means SoC usually,
>> so this looks SoC specific, thus implied by compatible.
>> > Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>
> Sure will redesign this logic and use compatible in patch V2.
Hi, I hope you are well and that was just some mishap, but I cannot help
but notice that you received review within two hours after posting
patch, but now you responded to my review after 6 months.
Sometimes I really consider reviewing at the end of 2 weeks - the usual
maximum time frame.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists