Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: imx25-pinfunc: Always set SION for SD CMD

[Shawn Guo <shawnguo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 09:37:11PM +0100, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 4:37 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 01:07:52AM +0100, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> >> The eSDHC does not work properly if the SION bit is not set for the
> >> bidirectional CMD signal, whatever the eSDHC instance and the selected
> >> pad. Therefore, setting SION is mandatory for all eSDHC CMD ports. Do
> >> this for MX25_PAD_*__SD*_CMD in imx25-pinfunc.h in order to enforce this
> >> behavior for all boards.
> >>
> >> This had already been done for eSDHC1, but not for eSDHC2. Also, define
> >> MX25_PAD_FEC_MDC__SDHC2_CMD so that all the possible cases are covered
> >> from now on.
> >
> > There is an inconsistency in the naming. The eSDHC1 CMD constants are
> > named:
> >
> >         MX25_PAD_SD1_CMD__SD1_CMD
> >
> > The reference calls this:
> >
> >         CMD of instance: esdhc1.
> >
> > The register name is correct though. Not sure it's worth to fix this to
> > use consistent naming (which would result in:
> >
> >         MX25_PAD_SD1_CMD__ESDHC1_CMD
> >
> > which looks ugly, too).
> 
> Indeed. I had also noticed this. I can send a patch to apply before
> this one. But that would break the out-of-tree DT files using these
> definitions. Would that be OK?

That's OK, I would say.  It could be a reminder of that they should
upstream their files.

Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html