From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752028AbcHZHmn (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2016 03:42:43 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:35560 "EHLO mail-wm0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751541AbcHZHml (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2016 03:42:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160825204645.GA19450@zach-desktop> References: <1472080984-17373-1-git-send-email-zach.brown@ni.com> <20160825105640.GA5439@remoulade> <20160825171539.GA13571@zach-desktop> <20160825180959.GA14705@remoulade> <20160825182621.GA14817@zach-desktop> <20160825182852.GB15000@remoulade> <20160825204645.GA19450@zach-desktop> From: Ulf Hansson Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 09:42:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sdhci-of-arasan: Add quirk and device tree parameter to fake CD bit To: Zach Brown , Mark Rutland Cc: Adrian Hunter , Rob Herring , linux-mmc , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Simek , =?UTF-8?Q?S=C3=B6ren_Brinkmann?= , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Lars-Peter Clausen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25 August 2016 at 22:46, Zach Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:28:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:26:22PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:15:44PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote: >> > > > In cases where the card is non-removable then polling doesn't make sense. >> > > >> > > We have the non-removable property to describe that, so we can also look at that. >> > > >> > > > So it doesn't make sense to tie the test mode workaround into the broken-cd >> > > > property, even though I agree the nature of the defect fits under the notion >> > > > of the CD being broken. >> > > >> > > Maybe not solely on broken-cd, but I think that we dont necessarily need a new >> > > DT property. As above, broken-cd, non-removable, and the compatible string may >> > > together give the kernel enough information to choose the right thing to do. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Mark. >> > >> > I'm not sure if I understand your suggestion completely. Are you suggesting >> > setting both the broken-cd and non-removable properties? That would make sense, >> > but my understanding was that the two properities are not meant to co-exist. In >> > /Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt it states that only one should >> > be supplied. Don't the two properties conflict with each other? >> >> They do for the cases that exist today, but given we're updating the document >> anyway, we could simply clarify the cases in which the two can sanely co-exist >> (e.g. for this particular IP block). No, please! Depending on the SDHCI variant there is already some difference on how broken-cd is treated. Let's not add yet another, as I think it will be too complicated for people to understand the bindings. >> >> Thanks, >> Mark. > > That makes sense. I'll change the documentation for broken-cd and non-removable > in the IP specific document and change the driver accordingly. I rather have a new DT binding specific for this case. Perhaps there's a better name than "fake-cd". How about "force-cd", or if someone can come up with a better name. Kind regards Uffe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ulf.hansson@linaro.org (Ulf Hansson) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 09:42:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sdhci-of-arasan: Add quirk and device tree parameter to fake CD bit In-Reply-To: <20160825204645.GA19450@zach-desktop> References: <1472080984-17373-1-git-send-email-zach.brown@ni.com> <20160825105640.GA5439@remoulade> <20160825171539.GA13571@zach-desktop> <20160825180959.GA14705@remoulade> <20160825182621.GA14817@zach-desktop> <20160825182852.GB15000@remoulade> <20160825204645.GA19450@zach-desktop> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 25 August 2016 at 22:46, Zach Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:28:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:26:22PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 07:10:00PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:15:44PM -0500, Zach Brown wrote: >> > > > In cases where the card is non-removable then polling doesn't make sense. >> > > >> > > We have the non-removable property to describe that, so we can also look at that. >> > > >> > > > So it doesn't make sense to tie the test mode workaround into the broken-cd >> > > > property, even though I agree the nature of the defect fits under the notion >> > > > of the CD being broken. >> > > >> > > Maybe not solely on broken-cd, but I think that we dont necessarily need a new >> > > DT property. As above, broken-cd, non-removable, and the compatible string may >> > > together give the kernel enough information to choose the right thing to do. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Mark. >> > >> > I'm not sure if I understand your suggestion completely. Are you suggesting >> > setting both the broken-cd and non-removable properties? That would make sense, >> > but my understanding was that the two properities are not meant to co-exist. In >> > /Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt it states that only one should >> > be supplied. Don't the two properties conflict with each other? >> >> They do for the cases that exist today, but given we're updating the document >> anyway, we could simply clarify the cases in which the two can sanely co-exist >> (e.g. for this particular IP block). No, please! Depending on the SDHCI variant there is already some difference on how broken-cd is treated. Let's not add yet another, as I think it will be too complicated for people to understand the bindings. >> >> Thanks, >> Mark. > > That makes sense. I'll change the documentation for broken-cd and non-removable > in the IP specific document and change the driver accordingly. I rather have a new DT binding specific for this case. Perhaps there's a better name than "fake-cd". How about "force-cd", or if someone can come up with a better name. Kind regards Uffe