From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srinivas Kandagatla Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/13] mmc: mmci: Add Qualcomm Id to amba id table Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:49:27 +0100 Message-ID: <53885427.5090509@linaro.org> References: <1401284608-16428-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1401284779-16563-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Russell King , linux-mmc , Chris Ball , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Walleij List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 30/05/14 10:39, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 28 May 2014 15:46, wrote: >> From: Srinivas Kandagatla >> >> This patch adds a fake Qualcomm ID 0x00051180 to the amba_ids, as Qualcomm >> SDCC controller is pl180, but amba id registers read 0x0's. >> The plan is to remove SDCC driver totally and use mmci as the main SD >> controller driver for Qualcomm SOCs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla >> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >> index a38e714..86f25a9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c >> @@ -160,6 +160,14 @@ static struct variant_data variant_ux500v2 = { >> .pwrreg_nopower = true, >> }; >> >> +static struct variant_data variant_qcom = { >> + .fifosize = 16 * 4, >> + .fifohalfsize = 8 * 4, >> + .clkreg = MCI_CLK_ENABLE, >> + .datalength_bits = 24, >> + .pwrreg_powerup = MCI_PWR_UP, >> +}; >> + >> static int mmci_card_busy(struct mmc_host *mmc) >> { >> struct mmci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc); >> @@ -1750,6 +1758,12 @@ static struct amba_id mmci_ids[] = { >> .mask = 0xf0ffffff, >> .data = &variant_ux500v2, >> }, >> + /* Qualcomm variants */ >> + { >> + .id = 0x00051180, >> + .mask = 0x000fffff, >> + .data = &variant_qcom, >> + }, >> { 0, 0 }, >> }; > > Shouldn't this patch be moved to very end of this patchset? > > If we would apply this patch on it's own - the Qcom variant wouldn't > work, right? Yes, I would not work. I will move it to the end of the patchset. Thanks, srini > > Kind regards > Ulf Hansson > >> >> -- >> 1.9.1 >>