Re: [PATCH 1/2] sdhci-of-arasan: Add quirk and device tree parameter to fake CD bit

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

On 27 August 2016 at 00:29, Zach Brown <zach.brown@ni.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:42:38AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 25 August 2016 at 22:46, Zach Brown <zach.brown@ni.com> 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.
>>
>
> Shawn Lin pointed out that there might be instances of the arasan controller
> that don't have the behavior the patch addresses. Having a new DT binding
> specific for this case would avoid needing to maintain a list of controllers
> that need the fix.
>

Okay!

>> >>
>> >> 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
>
> I've been trying to come up with a better name. Here are a few ideas
> cd-not-wired
> needs-test-cd
> fails-without-force-cd

Yeah, we could probably announce a naming competition for this. :-)

Just select one of them and try to get an ack from Rob/Mark then I
will pick up the change.

Kind regards
Uffe