From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCBAC432BE for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:44:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83C6610CF for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 13:44:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240142AbhHSNpR (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:45:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32840 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238463AbhHSNpR (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 09:45:17 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51504C061575 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 06:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id i13so5991039ilm.11 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 06:44:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ug1OSGTt9qLTp56AgUL2RfL1TSKASvvRSNzqRc2tcqw=; b=XfvaZ7ZW98kSfzUdcrLY4dFpOgBvtifT09w0hvXSRHNg0WtGEFaTODfTsIuOxZs7zi vBeZ1DlAaHqzXB/EpOMgzPWPDgODvbSMzvLb0HVSicDgzWNojNr3tDeMY2HFyZQoBt9O XlrMazdrCg8Kz5EAqXZnxUn0g5BwvYEoLQZNDIR1/Xk/QlFSSfW8DBmCoxaigl6MIkdQ ICPu0Z4JFoIuVPMd/RrJomE9SqGH/B5eWSHbxytuM2S/n0XS9TvtgmJ0hT4KPqnD5ACp HHjXeUW7AByGw8JQZYmzTv10iV96woEDRmibQiowyvtN15cK34kkiVx4u6b7ZiNtrm/C Y1NQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ug1OSGTt9qLTp56AgUL2RfL1TSKASvvRSNzqRc2tcqw=; b=Gf4NwuIl4pLuRXtoglpAmhDsr/Mm8OJaRiI7TF7H6NcZNeAG/jgawAiMQdKwhKGxOW FaVUyGaHvpmHT44hFxql6WU0xwJmGzYozwyHod/kASyPgmTGmQ83QC5ZgqHqAmWxGreH GHcrtP0UjFYE1oG/9Q5MaE5nahK/DCEwzH5KVTFgESW9gVYxAGWXQHFKY9N76qSbDlsi IRBFDEPrKzVm7zZ1SEpOZPNePYuCEVH3r+hu31NMAaHqDcjFUIwlaJfuSrZ1fQprD5HZ GBxjvCvwdZGA7bFFe+zw5Rl0dLH8qqJEoQahDHBH5nk4pPUYFutxXxPwYIn2TNWQV7aJ bBBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532r9uGGsKj6X4Gx9D7F6Y2T1PmxFrbOoyYbWdByZf5lDyxZGYaj XfVrf1yI8GkPBKWfaQ2lxAX3rCG6GFAwoNATaK3KFQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwmtqmWXSprK1vhwc2gg4x6OTwPqzsJkVqyF5yv9RgHlIUTV7TV6oYqT3ZY2f6S/bmRmGGnAfG82XXx36knYQw= X-Received: by 2002:a92:d304:: with SMTP id x4mr9982073ila.82.1629380680491; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 06:44:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1629132650-26277-1-git-send-email-sbhanu@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: From: Doug Anderson Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 06:44:27 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Use maximum drive strength values for eMMC To: Shaik Sajida Bhanu Cc: Adrian Hunter , Ulf Hansson , Rob Herring , Asutosh Das , Sahitya Tummala , pragalla@codeaurora.org, nitirawa@codeaurora.org, Ram Prakash Gupta , Sayali Lokhande , sartgarg@codeaurora.org, cang@codeaurora.org, Linux MMC List , LKML , linux-arm-msm , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Andy Gross , Bjorn Andersson , Stephen Boyd , Matthias Kaehlcke Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 6:58 AM Doug Anderson wrote: > > > pinconf-data { > > pins = "sdc1_data"; > > bias-pull-up; > > - drive-strength = <10>; > > + drive-strength = <16>; > > I could be convinced that this is the right thing to do, but I want to > really make sure that it has had sufficient testing. Specifically as > this patch is written we'll be updating the drive strength for all > boards. Increasing the drive strength can sometimes introduce new > problems (reflections, noise, ...) so we have to be confident that > we're not breaking someone that used to work by increasing the drive > strength here. How much has this been tested? >From further discussion internally, it sounds as if this should be fine and fixes more than just this one eMMC part. Thus: Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson