From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B3E3195E4 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=13.77.154.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776276490; cv=none; b=GxVzZ1CZU/K0gsq32fBuH8eviuemHEsxBaD98fTvC4k0mrrXu1g0bZxdVjj1EAy8cef+sEornihKiw/KKUci426nR9MD0N2OOuZX9sEDN7ejopnF7rByn0q1xiT46RFsII4G8xCJWLMTwEwLH9XsBsPkOI4OfKu1WMsHfcjsWeA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776276490; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TCV4VIJmWx9k667IW/rOciXHIeyHQuU5WisubSOrurc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=dscK9XSHdgaaQG2GvhmI7U6doZAHeciIcYOayHL++QXLqAsdgqd95Geqp006uccjzLLEgK/yo/D1j9kjB9JyZbxHK5x6IMubUaGe82T9heSuqen3w1ARkPO/0zFG/0nsoNH0oZcUGD3qncC+BCBm3A2z18HK4/E8QwJZNc/kXmQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.microsoft.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.microsoft.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b=qxkXAeh6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=13.77.154.182 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.microsoft.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.microsoft.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b="qxkXAeh6" Received: from [10.17.149.54] (unknown [131.107.1.246]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A347B20B7128; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:08:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com A347B20B7128 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1776276481; bh=TCV4VIJmWx9k667IW/rOciXHIeyHQuU5WisubSOrurc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=qxkXAeh6A57FRAaZ6ImQ5cMOifokZ9e36rM6iGTU6eCB5uKHnYNosUIR4ZGv/erTZ p72khgsnBaQnzG9kW1IItvlE5219X6GHUaq5gtA7T4ilxEcvk5/HJdBqILP5WpcLCK te89vK2aF1HQKdncjhPLcMK1ZqESt7hS29WWfGkA= Message-ID: <448010ef-278c-4711-a244-447a2b1a22c1@linux.microsoft.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:07:59 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: host: sdhci-iproc: implement the .hw_reset callback To: Florian Fainelli , rjui@broadcom.com Cc: sbranden@broadcom.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tgopinath@linux.microsoft.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org References: <20260327222150.2108111-1-meaganlloyd@linux.microsoft.com> <3305684d-8517-47dd-8852-2e34d40fc712@linux.microsoft.com> <702c52e4-b0b3-4e1e-a40d-29e136e46d7d@broadcom.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Meagan Lloyd In-Reply-To: <702c52e4-b0b3-4e1e-a40d-29e136e46d7d@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 4/13/2026 10:43 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 4/13/26 10:38, Meagan Lloyd wrote: >> >> On 3/27/2026 3:21 PM, Meagan Lloyd wrote: >>> Implement the .hw_reset callback so that the eMMC can be reset as >>> needed >>> given cap-mmc-hw-reset is set in the devicetree and the >>> functionality is >>> enabled on the eMMC. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Meagan Lloyd >>> --- >>> >>> SDHCI_POWER_CONTROL[4] (SD Host Controller Standard) has been >>> repurposed >>> on my Broadcomm processor to be eMMC hardware reset >>> (SDIO*_eMMCSDXC_CTRL[12], HRESET). >>> >>> Can you confirm this repurposed bit is consistent across the Broadcomm >>> iProc processors and thus the .hw_reset callback can be uniformly >>> applied in this driver? >> >> Hi Ray & Scott, >> >> I hope you're doing well. This bit looks to have been repurposed from >> the SD Host Controller Standard's VDD2 Power Control to being used for >> toggling the hardware reset signal to eMMCs. Can you verify that it >> applies across the iProc processors so that I may finalize this patch? > > Which iProc process are you using? If you are not sure this applies > broadly, can you at least make it specific to the SoC you are using?  Yes, if it comes to that I can. I think it's overkill to roll a new compat string/associated structures over this small change, hence checking with Broadcomm iProc maintainers on this thread.