From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/25] mmc: sdhci-pci: Use ACPI DSM to get driver strength for some Intel devices Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:50:54 +0300 Message-ID: <47372fbd-9c16-725a-7f25-97481f09a6eb@intel.com> References: <1490032253-6030-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <1490032253-6030-8-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <20170404084847.GB1439@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:29945 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761071AbdDSI4k (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 04:56:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170404084847.GB1439@katana> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Ulf Hansson , linux-mmc , Al Cooper , Jaedon Shin , Haibo Chen , Dong Aisheng , Shawn Lin , Douglas Anderson , Zach Brown , Ludovic Desroches , Jisheng Zhang , Yangbo Lu , Jaehoon Chung , Weijun Yang , Barry Song , Peter Griffin , Lee Jones , Jon Hunter , Harjani Ritesh On 04/04/17 11:48, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 07:50:35PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> Make use of an Intel ACPI _DSM that provides eMMC driver strength. >> >> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter > > This is an interesting patch for me because it seems I have to deal with > drive-strength soon, as well, for the SDHI driver. You basically fall > back here to simply read the drive strength value from ACPI, right? Yes, it is a single value. I did not design the _DSM, it was a preexisting method. > So, > do you think it makes sense then to have a similar encoded value from DT > (maybe "mmc-fixed-driver-type-" with n=0..4)? The _DSM, being a device-specific method does not have to support different devices with different requirements whereas DT does. > This is a largely > reduced encoding of what you proposed in 2015 [1] but may be more > pragmatic for soldered on-board devices working on their max speeds with > fixed voltages and frequencies? Or did I get something wrong? What I proposed was being forced on me by the requirement to provide a solution that could meet any conceivable need. That gets over-complicated. But as you say, in practice people are probably only interested in providing one value for the max speed / frequency. > > Thanks, > > Wolfram > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/16/273 > >