Re: ARC dw-mshc binding compat string

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On 03/28/2016 12:34 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

[...]

>>>>>>>> That said, I would rather prefer to see "snps,dw-mshc" prefix on description
>>>>>>>> of an MMC controller found on SoCFPGA series, "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc" seems
>>>>>>>> to be redundant.
> 
> Yes..it's redundant..i should be combined to "snps,dw-mshc".

Should the compat string be
  compatible = "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc", "snps,dw-mshc";
or just
  compatible = "snps,dw-mshc";
?

I am under the impression that a soc-specific identifier in addition to
a generic one (used by the driver compat table) is a good idea, because
it can help discerning the IP block from a generic one if needed at some
future point in time. It will also not break the DT for systems
which may depend on the non-generic compat, like *BSDs and such.

What do you think ? (btw this is very much my question in this thread)

>>>>>>> According to drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-pltfm.c , the Altera SoCFPGA one
>>>>>>> "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc" and also Imagination Technology Pistacio one
>>>>>>> "img,pistachio-dw-mshc" need specialty bit (SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG),
>>>>>>> while the stock one "snps,dw-mshc" does not. I am not sure if the ARC
>>>>>>> one needs it as well, but most likely yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if that bit is needed on some particular version of the DWMMC
>>>>>>> core. In that case, should we have "snps,dw-mshc" and "snps,dw-mshc-vN"
>>>>>>> binding ? Or should we use DT property to discern the need for this bit ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the most common way to take into account peculiarities, add
>>>>>> a property and handle it from the driver.
>>>>> And by "that" you mean which of those two I listed , the
>>>>> "snps,dw-mshc-vN" or adding new DT prop ?
>>>>>
>>>> I meant to add a new property, not a new compatible, but that's just
>>>> my experience.
>>>>
>>>> Let me say it __might__ happen that a particular change you need is
>>>> specific to a particular version of the DWMMC IP (query Synopsys
>>>> by the way), but more probably it might be e.g. the same IP version with
>>>> a different reduced or extended configuration or a minor fix/improvement
>>>> to the IP block without resulting version number bump.
>>>>
>>>> For example I don't remember that errata fixes in IP blocks result in
>>>> a new compatible, instead there are quite common optional "quirk"
>>>> properties for broken IPs -- e.g. check bindings/usb/dwc3.txt :)
>>> Right, this very much matches how I see it as well. Thanks for confirming.
>>>
>>> Alexey, can you tell us if the requirement for setting
>>> SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG came with some new revision of the core or
>>> disappeared with some revision OR if this is some configuration
>>> option of the core during synthesis ?
>>
>> Sorry for not following that discussion during my weekend but I'll try
>> to address all questions now.
> 
> SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG didn't come with new revision..It's using continuously.
> But it's difficult to use the generic feature..because it's considered the below things.
> 
> If Card is SDR50/SDR104/DDR50 mode..
> 	1) and phase shift of cclk_in_drv is 0 then SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG bit is set to 0,
> 	2) and phase shift of cclk_in_drv > 0 then SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG bit is set to 1,
> If Card is SDR12/SDR25 mode, then this bit is set to 1.
> 
> We need to check phase shift scheme..but as i knew, each SoC have been implemented differently for phase shift.
> (Phase shift have dependency to SoC.)
> 
> And it have to check HCON register..there is IMPLEMENT_HOLD_REG(bit[22]).
> (It described whether IP have hold register or not)
> 
> I didn't read this thread entirely.
> I'm not sure what you have discussed..but my understanding is right..i recommend to use "snps,dw-mshc" for ARC compat string.
> Otherwise it need to add "dw_mmc-<SoC>.c". dw_mmc-pltfm.c should provide the basic dw-mmc controller functionality.
> 
> After read this thread entirely, i will check more detailed what you discussed.
> If i missed something, let me know, plz.

Thanks for the clarification, linux-next indeed contains changes which
make snps,dw-mshc and altr,socfpga-dw-mshc equal.

> Best Regards,
> Jaehoon Chung
> 
>>
>> DW Mobile Storage databook says:
>> --------------------->8-----------------------
>> To meet the relatively high Input Hold Time requirement for SDR12, SDR25,
>> and other MMC speed modes, you should program bit[29]use_hold_Reg of the
>> CMD register to 1'b1.
>> --------------------->8-----------------------
>>
>> So I'd say this specific setting has nothing to do with a particular IP block
>> but instead it is related to card's mode of operation. More precisely bus clock.
>> SDR12 stands for 12.5 MByte/s, SDR25 stands for 25 MByte/s. I.e. we probably need
>> so set that bit just for certain cases and regardless board that uses DW MMC.
>>
>> I'm adding DW MMC maintainer as well as linux-mmc mailing list so people who
>> understands that stuff better may comment here as well.
>>
>> -Alexey--
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut