Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dt: bindings: mmc: Document the practice of using subnodes for slots

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Hi,

On 06/02/2014 10:29 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 1 June 2014 11:23, Hans de Goede <hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 05/31/2014 10:13 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The following existing MMC host controller bindings use slot subnodes:
>>>>
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc.txt
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/k3-dw-mshc.txt
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/exynos-dw-mshc.txt
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/socfpga-dw-mshc.txt
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/atmel-hsmci.txt
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/rockchip-dw-mshc.txt
>>>>
>>>> This commit documents this practice in the standard mmc bindings
>>>> documentation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are today only two drivers that use this kind of binding, dw_mmc
>>> and the at91 one.
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>
>>> Neither seems to actually ever have been used with
>>> more than one slot. I doubt anyone building an exynos-based system
>>> will ever do a multi-slot solution, and it seems that the at91 driver
>>> doesn't actually handle more than one slot.
>>>
>>> I'm personally not that excited about complicating the bindings by
>>> opening up for this -- I would rather work towards removing the
>>> concept of slots if it's one of those things that are going to remain
>>> unused. We have actually been talking about reworking the dw_mmc
>>> binding to remove the slot concept (and simplify the driver by doing
>>> so).
>>
>>
>> I'm fine with removing the slot subnode, I added it because of it being
>> brought up in the powerup sequence discussion. I explicitly asked there
>> if adding such a subnode level was seen as desirable but nobody
>> answered :|
>>
>> Anyways, either way works for me. I can do a v3 dropping the slot subnode
>> level again. I would really like to move forward with a decision on how-to
>> represent non probable info for sdio devices in device nodes. So do you
>> have any other remarks other then that the slot subnode should be dropped ?
>> And if not can you please review and ack (*) v3 of this patch-set once
>> I've send it?
>>
>> Chris Ball and Ulf Hansson, what is your take on this, are you willing to
>> take this patch set? And do you want it with or without the slot subnodes ?
> 
> I certainly appreciate you working actively on this Hans, I will look
> into the patchset as soon as I can.

Thanks. If I read you correctly below, then you want the slot nodes
to be removed, correct? In that case it is probably best if you wait reviewing
until I've done a v3, with the slot nodes removed. I hope to find some time
to do this this evening (CET).

Regards,

Hans


> 
> I share Olof's view about the slot nodes, we must not add DT bindings
> that isn't really needed.
> 
> Regarding the slot subnodes; Jaehoon Chung recently posted a patchset
> for adding the parsing of it, intended for dwmmc. I withdraw my ack
> for it, and let's try to go in the other direction instead.
> 
> [PATCHv3 0/4] mmc: fixed the mmc_of_parse for dwmmc.
> 
> Thus I suggest we should clean-up host drivers to support only one
> card per host, and entirely skip the slot concept.
> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe
> 
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> *) Assuming you don't find any issues