Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for Keem Bay SOC

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:44 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 13:24, Shevchenko, Andriy
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:53:42AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 08:02, <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > Kindly help to review this patch set.
> > >
> > > This version looks a lot better to me, but I am still requesting you
> > > to model the pinctrl correctly. I don't see a reason not to, but I may
> > > have overlooked some things.
> >
> > I'm wondering why we need to mock up a pin control from something which has no
> > pin control interface. It's rather communication with firmware that does pin
> > control under the hood, but it also may be different hardware in the other /
> > future generations. Would you accept mocking up the same calls over the kernel
> > as pin control, as something else?
>
> Well, my point is that modeling this a pinctrl would keep the mmc
> driver portable. Additionally, it's very common to manage pinctrls in
> mmc drivers, so it's not like this is an entirely new thing that I
> propose.
>
> If/when it turns out that there is a new HW having a different pinctrl
> interface, it would just mean that we need a new pinctrl driver, but
> can leave the mmc driver as is.

My point is that it may be *not* a pin control at all.
And in that case you will need to mock up (what exactly?) and update
the MMC driver.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko