Re: [PATCH 1/6] mmc: omap_hsmmc: start using generic non-removable DT binding

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:18:22PM +0100, Balaji T K wrote:
> From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
> 
> add generic "non-removable" binding support for omap_hsmmc
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Balaji T K <balajitk@ti.com>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/ti-omap-hsmmc.txt      |    2 +-
>  drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c                      |    3 +++
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/ti-omap-hsmmc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/ti-omap-hsmmc.txt
> index 8c8908a..3b95719 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/ti-omap-hsmmc.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/ti-omap-hsmmc.txt
> @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Optional properties:
>  ti,dual-volt: boolean, supports dual voltage cards
>  <supply-name>-supply: phandle to the regulator device tree node
>  "supply-name" examples are "vmmc", "vmmc_aux" etc
> -ti,non-removable: non-removable slot (like eMMC)
> +ti,non-removable: non-removable eMMC with always on vccq and configurable vcc

Why this change?

What do "vccq" and "vcc" correspond to? The regulators are called "vmmc"
and "vmmc_aux"...

Why is no mention of "non-removable" added, given that it's added to the
code?

Is one preferred over the other? That should be noted.

>  ti,needs-special-reset: Requires a special softreset sequence
>  ti,needs-special-hs-handling: HSMMC IP needs special setting for handling High Speed
>  dmas: List of DMA specifiers with the controller specific format
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> index 6ac63df..5992048 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/omap_hsmmc.c
> @@ -1738,6 +1738,9 @@ static struct omap_mmc_platform_data *of_get_hsmmc_pdata(struct device *dev)
>  	pdata->slots[0].switch_pin = cd_gpio;
>  	pdata->slots[0].gpio_wp = wp_gpio;
>  
> +	if (of_find_property(np, "non-removable", NULL)) {
> +		pdata->slots[0].nonremovable = true;
> +	}

This wasn't mentioned in the binding, and it seems to have different
semantics to "ti,non-removable". Why is it different?

>  	if (of_find_property(np, "ti,non-removable", NULL)) {
>  		pdata->slots[0].nonremovable = true;
>  		pdata->slots[0].no_regulator_off_init = true;

Cheers,
Mark.