From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:01:16 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: shmobile: silk: add SDHI0/1 DT support
In-Reply-To: <54E9ED95.8070702@cogentembedded.com>
References: <10037494.4LD4T2QGPX@wasted.cogentembedded.com>
 <2348421.LHyZ4ZOiiG@wasted.cogentembedded.com>
 <CANqRtoRnDzTSvKYcNDHKHbeaN7jp1VvKnk1jTHDvNt1oyBzwKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <54E9ED95.8070702@cogentembedded.com>
Message-ID: <20150223220116.GC29878@verge.net.au>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 05:54:13PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 02/22/2015 03:45 AM, Magnus Damm wrote:
> 
> >>Define the SILK board dependent parts of the SDHI0  (connected to SDIO Wi-Fi
> >>chip)  and SDHI1  (connected to micro-SD slot) device nodes along with the
> >>necessary voltage regulators.
> 
> >>Based on the original patch by Vladimir Barinov
> >><vladimir.barinov@cogentembedded.com>.
> 
> >>Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
> 
> >Thanks for your patch. One question - above you write that SDHI1 is micro-SD...
> 
>    Yes, have double-checked now.
> 
> >>@@ -100,3 +159,25 @@
> >>         non-removable;
> >>         status = "okay";
> >>  };
> >>+
> >>+&sdhi0 {
> >>+       pinctrl-0 = <&sdhi0_pins>;
> >>+       pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>+
> >>+       vmmc-supply = <&vcc_sdhi0>;
> >>+       vqmmc-supply = <&vccq_sdhi0>;
> >>+       cd-gpios = <&gpio6 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> >>+       wp-gpios = <&gpio6 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> >>+       status = "okay";
> >>+};
> >>+
> >>+&sdhi1 {
> >>+       pinctrl-0 = <&sdhi1_pins>;
> >>+       pinctrl-names = "default";
> >>+
> >>+       vmmc-supply = <&vcc_sdhi1>;
> >>+       vqmmc-supply = <&vccq_sdhi1>;
> >>+       cd-gpios = <&gpio6 14 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> >>+       wp-gpios = <&gpio6 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> >>+       status = "okay";
> >>+};
> 
> >... however here the WP signal is assigned.
> 
> >I believe micro-SD doesn't use the WP signal, so either I'm wrong or
> >the patch needs to be updated to reflect reality. =)
> 
>    Both seem correct: SD1_WP signal is just tied to VCCQ_SD1. Do you think
> we should still drop it?
> 
> >Also, I doubt that an on-board SDIO module makes use of CD and/or WP signals?
> 
>    Those two are tied to VCCQ_SD0 as well. Do you think we should drop them?

I am holding off on queuing this up until some consensus is reached.