From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Add support for Erratum 2.1.1.128 in device tree boot Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:05:49 -0600 Message-ID: <20140121180549.GS30451@saruman.home> References: <1390260542-22213-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20140120233941.GG6516@saruman.home> <52DEB078.5030005@ti.com> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="U2mKMzaWgYxzMy3/" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52DEB078.5030005@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon Cc: balbi@ti.com, Balaji T K , Chris Ball , Tony Lindgren , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --U2mKMzaWgYxzMy3/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:38:00AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 01/20/2014 05:39 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:29:02PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> When device is booted using devicetree, platforms impacted by > >> Erratum 2.1.1.128 is not detected easily in the mmc driver. This errat= um > >> indicates that the module cannot do multi-block transfers. > >> > >> Handle this by providing a boolean flag to indicate to driver that it = is > >> working on a hardware with mentioned limitation. > >=20 > > sure there's no way of reading the revision register to figure this one > > out without having to add a new DT attribute ? > >=20 > I did a quick patch to read the Module revision register: > http://slexy.org/view/s21TKvlWlR >=20 > sdp2430: Revision: 1.2, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt >=20 > OMAP3430-ldp: (ES2.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > SDP3430:(ES3.0) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > AM3517-evm: (ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > AM3517-crane:(ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt >=20 > AM37x-evm: (ES1.2) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > OMAP3630-beag-xm (ES1.2): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt >=20 > am335x-evm:(ES1.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt > am335x-sk: (ES2.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt > am335x-beaglebone-black:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal > interrupt >=20 > sdp4430.txt: (ES2.2): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt >=20 > OMAP4460-panda-es (ES1.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt >=20 > OMAP5uevm:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt > dra7-evm (es1.1): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt >=20 >=20 > OMAP3430-ldp seems to be the only one impacted with module revision > 2.6 -> so using revision information is not really helpful here. Hence > the usage of a flag in dt attribute to indicate hardware impacted by > erratum. alright, that's too bad. Seems like revision in this module isn't very useful :-( --=20 balbi --U2mKMzaWgYxzMy3/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS3rb9AAoJEIaOsuA1yqREMNQP+wS3w/GDoF7wWzNiiN0cd3om QEIXQzVbegQTPZ4A1eOX1BhR5NJHU9040e0WicTMaHwSoW0OrxLufp6Kq8dLvwn9 07Vli+l7qhBKhdWanMuaMwgt77AC56N4/TZy5RNWv66HXLsCUGtaEzrcv4fYMUor Hscxctejdm9HAVU/ZpJKju1cXtea85gVCRdzaEU6fHt5xfmag6++vpuu2asopkru 618OKGh5vMWco7H1S44Rwn7F1EuxA1xv5wGJ8kGd/KKLfLZ8iJP42P9QQ+XBW6nf NmBVb6omPRPNCgDT5LH+45meqdUNGhF4xkEoNDVnP3paJdgzndagVc0FwEAiHIhL dXWq+J7UUgxtaLyR+0zZtzerfNvIpnly8NvVYFZDDyLylYI0hvOpswmKcxPAlUpy bzXdS+ixmIf6qw+U44SqDIvUvY6Fe8G6YEsfbWawCqPdtgtdfHU59BL31y5V25zt chX60CImNvcPODgexy+FUJN38FVxbwP6CfcFq85Q13u/bXgmL1sVeWS8xevnkMjv gX57yV4zzYkTa2gsHyVAMlhJli5AtkKCwxKZWVqEITkJCRUyuV0Mqmz5vsupgrmY KIPzhyrQ82cQSbyI5YP9l7U4EWjY1cW/eY4xVFr062ttsRqgx8DgzbMK1cPX1sMz KpJjDJ/nZIe5moqj629t =7mFc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --U2mKMzaWgYxzMy3/--