Re: [PATCH 02/19] mmc: mmci: merge qcom dml feature into mmci dma

[Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>]

On 11 July 2018 at 17:19, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/05/2018 05:26 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>> On 12 June 2018 at 15:14, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@st.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>>>
>>> This patch integrates qcom dml feature into mmci_dma file.
>>> Qualcomm Data Mover lite/local is already a variant of mmci dmaengine.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/mmc/host/Makefile        |   1 -
>>>   drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c          |   1 -
>>>   drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h          |  35 ++++++++
>>>   drivers/mmc/host/mmci_dma.c      | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>   drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.c | 177
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>   drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.h |  31 -------
>>>   6 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 211 deletions(-)
>>>   delete mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.c
>>>   delete mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.h
>>
>>
>> No, this is not the way to go. Instead I I think there are two options.
>>
>> 1) Keep mmci_qcom_dml.c|h and thus add new files for the stm32 dma
>> variant.
>>
>> 2) Start by renaming mmci_qcom_dml.* to mmc_dma.* and then in the next
>> step add the code for stm32 dma into the renamed files.
>>
>> I guess if there is some overlap in functionality, 2) may be best as
>> it could easier avoid open coding. However, I am fine with whatever
>> option and I expect that you knows what is best.
>
>
> After patch 01 & 05 comments:
> I will try to define a mmci_ops which contain some functions pointer
> called by mmci.c (core).
> A variant defines its mmci_ops.
> where do you define the specific function:
> -in a single file, mmci-ops.c or other (for the name, I'm not inspirated)
> -or in specific file for each variant mmci-qcom.c or mmci-stm32.c
>
> following the comment (above), I think we define a single file?

If I understand the question, the problem is how we should assign the
mmc host ops, which corresponds to the probed variant data!?

I took a stub at it and posted two patches which I think you should be
able to build upon. Please have a look.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe