[PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Jaehoon Chung]

This patchset is the purpose for using sdhci-pltfm.c and 
removing the arch dependency.
The sdhci-s3c has too heavy arch dependency.
For example, if work for sdhci-s3c.c at mmc-tree, sometime need to change sdhci.h for Samsung-Soc.
But now we need to work at both mmc-next tree and Samsung-SoC tree.
I think this is very inefficient and can conflict to merge.
So remained at least dependency and moved the header file to mmc folder.

And sdhci-s3c changed to use the sdhci-pltfm.c.
There is no reason that didn't use the sdhci-pltfm.c.
If we use the sdhci-pltfm.c,we can easily maintain the common part.

In future, i will work more removing the arch dependency.

This patchset based on mmc-next tree.

Changelog v3:
	- Modify mmc/host/Makefile for sdhci-s3c.c
	- remove unnecessary code

Changelog V2:
	- modified driver/mmc/host/Kconfig
	- Add the comments for s3c64xx
	- based-on latest mmc-tree. 


Jaehoon Chung (4):
  mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm for Samsung-SoC
  ARM: SAMSUNG: move the sdhci header file to driver directory
  mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-s3c.h instead of regs-sdhci.h
  ARM: SAMSUNG: move the mmc platdata header file into linux/mmc/

 arch/arm/mach-exynos/setup-sdhci-gpio.c         |    1 -
 arch/arm/mach-s5pc100/setup-sdhci-gpio.c        |    1 -
 arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/setup-sdhci-gpio.c        |    1 -
 arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/regs-sdhci.h |   87 --------
 arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/sdhci.h      |   53 +-----
 drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig                        |   20 +-
 drivers/mmc/host/Makefile                       |    2 +-
 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-s3c.c                    |  265 ++++++++---------------
 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-s3c.h                    |   89 ++++++++
 include/linux/mmc/sdhci-s3c.h                   |   84 +++++++
 10 files changed, 273 insertions(+), 330 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/regs-sdhci.h
 create mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-s3c.h
 create mode 100644 include/linux/mmc/sdhci-s3c.h

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:17:20PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> This patchset is the purpose for using sdhci-pltfm.c and 
> removing the arch dependency.
> The sdhci-s3c has too heavy arch dependency.
> For example, if work for sdhci-s3c.c at mmc-tree, sometime need to change sdhci.h for Samsung-Soc.

This series will break S3C64xx, you've not touched it at all in the
update but it uses the same SDHCI controller.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Dienstag, 6. März 2012, 14:00:54 schrieb Mark Brown:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:17:20PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> > This patchset is the purpose for using sdhci-pltfm.c and
> > removing the arch dependency.
> > The sdhci-s3c has too heavy arch dependency.
> > For example, if work for sdhci-s3c.c at mmc-tree, sometime need to change
> > sdhci.h for Samsung-Soc.
> 
> This series will break S3C64xx, you've not touched it at all in the
> update but it uses the same SDHCI controller.

This problem will probably also surface for the S3C2416 which also uses the 
same SDHCI controller.

Heiko

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Jae hoon Chung]

2012/3/6 Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de>:
> Am Dienstag, 6. März 2012, 14:00:54 schrieb Mark Brown:
>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 03:17:20PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> > This patchset is the purpose for using sdhci-pltfm.c and
>> > removing the arch dependency.
>> > The sdhci-s3c has too heavy arch dependency.
>> > For example, if work for sdhci-s3c.c at mmc-tree, sometime need to change
>> > sdhci.h for Samsung-Soc.
>>
>> This series will break S3C64xx, you've not touched it at all in the
>> update but it uses the same SDHCI controller.
>
> This problem will probably also surface for the S3C2416 which also uses the
> same SDHCI controller.

i didn't know why will break  on them. Could you explain to me?
Are there codes which affect S3C64XX and S3C24XX?
If i miss out something, let me know.

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>
> Heiko
> --
> 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

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 653 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:40:08PM +0900, Jae hoon Chung wrote:
> 2012/3/6 Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de>:
> > Am Dienstag, 6. März 2012, 14:00:54 schrieb Mark Brown:

> >> This series will break S3C64xx, you've not touched it at all in the
> >> update but it uses the same SDHCI controller.

> > This problem will probably also surface for the S3C2416 which also uses the
> > same SDHCI controller.

> i didn't know why will break  on them. Could you explain to me?
> Are there codes which affect S3C64XX and S3C24XX?
> If i miss out something, let me know.

The same IP is present and used with the same driver on other Samsung
SoCs.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Jaehoon Chung]

On 03/07/2012 01:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 11:40:08PM +0900, Jae hoon Chung wrote:
>> 2012/3/6 Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de>:
>>> Am Dienstag, 6. März 2012, 14:00:54 schrieb Mark Brown:
> 
>>>> This series will break S3C64xx, you've not touched it at all in the
>>>> update but it uses the same SDHCI controller.
> 
>>> This problem will probably also surface for the S3C2416 which also uses the
>>> same SDHCI controller.
> 
>> i didn't know why will break  on them. Could you explain to me?
>> Are there codes which affect S3C64XX and S3C24XX?
>> If i miss out something, let me know.
> 
> The same IP is present and used with the same driver on other Samsung
> SoCs.

Hi Mark.

I know that used with the same driver on other Samsung-SoCs(S3C64XX/S3C24XX..etc)
I just only used the interface in sdhci-pltfm.c. Nothing difference..
Why do you think that will break the other SoC?

Header file(/plat/regs-sdhci.h) also is only used in sdhci-s3c.c.
And the least portion is moved into /linux/mmc/. 
Then included "linux/mmc/sdhci-s3c.h" in plat/sdhci.h.

What's difference? 
If you can explain the more detail, i can understand.
But sorry, now i didn't accept your opinion.

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:03:31PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 01:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > The same IP is present and used with the same driver on other Samsung
> > SoCs.

> I know that used with the same driver on other Samsung-SoCs(S3C64XX/S3C24XX..etc)
> I just only used the interface in sdhci-pltfm.c. Nothing difference..
> Why do you think that will break the other SoC?

> Header file(/plat/regs-sdhci.h) also is only used in sdhci-s3c.c.
> And the least portion is moved into /linux/mmc/. 
> Then included "linux/mmc/sdhci-s3c.h" in plat/sdhci.h.

> What's difference? 
> If you can explain the more detail, i can understand.
> But sorry, now i didn't accept your opinion.

To be honest I didn't read the series, the diffstat looks so obviously
problematic as you're touching the setup-gpio- files for only a subset
of Samsung architectures - there's been quite regular issues with
updates for newer SoCs breaking support for s3c64xx.

I also notice that this will conflict with the series I've previously
posted for runtime PM support which would push us even further back from
being able to use the lower power WFI modes in mainline :(  Though
hopefully that'll be easier to fix.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Jaehoon Chung]

Hi Mark.

On 03/08/2012 03:48 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:03:31PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> On 03/07/2012 01:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> The same IP is present and used with the same driver on other Samsung
>>> SoCs.
> 
>> I know that used with the same driver on other Samsung-SoCs(S3C64XX/S3C24XX..etc)
>> I just only used the interface in sdhci-pltfm.c. Nothing difference..
>> Why do you think that will break the other SoC?
> 
>> Header file(/plat/regs-sdhci.h) also is only used in sdhci-s3c.c.
>> And the least portion is moved into /linux/mmc/. 
>> Then included "linux/mmc/sdhci-s3c.h" in plat/sdhci.h.
> 
>> What's difference? 
>> If you can explain the more detail, i can understand.
>> But sorry, now i didn't accept your opinion.
> 
> To be honest I didn't read the series, the diffstat looks so obviously
> problematic as you're touching the setup-gpio- files for only a subset
> of Samsung architectures - there's been quite regular issues with
> updates for newer SoCs breaking support for s3c64xx.

Is there problem that move the s3c_sdhci_platdata struct into linux/mmc/?
In setup-gpio- files, you can see that included regs-sdhci.h.
But defined macro in regs-sdhci.h only used in sdhci-s3c.c.
So i think no problem that removed "#include <plat/regs-sdhci.h>". is it wrong?
Just touching the setup-gpio- files is problem?
If i have moved the defined as "extern", it's problem.
But i didn't move them.

For example, When i want to add the second capability for sdhci-s3c,
need to change code in samsung-soc and mmc stack.
if one of both didn't be merged, it's conflict or should not be work fine.
(Now, in mmc-next tree, mmc for Samsung-SoC didn't work fine during long time.)
There are reason that move the s3c_sdhci_platdata into linux/mmc/.
Then we can work at only mmc-next repository for sdhci-s3c.c.

> 
> I also notice that this will conflict with the series I've previously
> posted for runtime PM support which would push us even further back from
> being able to use the lower power WFI modes in mainline :(  Though
> hopefully that'll be easier to fix.

Right, it should be conflicted with your patch. but it will be fixed.
It's not big problem.

Thanks for your opinion.

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 314 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:35:53PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:

> So i think no problem that removed "#include <plat/regs-sdhci.h>". is it wrong?
> Just touching the setup-gpio- files is problem?

It should be fine, like I say I didn't really read the patches in enough
detail as the diffstat set off alarm bells.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Jaehoon Chung]

On 03/08/2012 08:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:35:53PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> 
>> So i think no problem that removed "#include <plat/regs-sdhci.h>". is it wrong?
>> Just touching the setup-gpio- files is problem?
> 
> It should be fine, like I say I didn't really read the patches in enough
> detail as the diffstat set off alarm bells.


If you have any opinions, let me know.
I believe that these patches can be maintain more efficiently for eMMC

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
 

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] mmc: sdhci-s3c: use the sdhci-pltfm.c and move the header file

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 456 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:53:26AM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 08:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > It should be fine, like I say I didn't really read the patches in enough
> > detail as the diffstat set off alarm bells.

> If you have any opinions, let me know.
> I believe that these patches can be maintain more efficiently for eMMC

Like I said I think it's fine.  If it helps:

Reviwed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]