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

Balaji T K
2013-10-17T10:53:48Z

On Thursday 17 October 2013 02:08 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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?
>
Hi,

earlier ti,non-removable was used for all eMMC and SDIO card, now it will
be used only for eMMC with always on vccq and configurable vcc.

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

vccq and vcc are supply names of eMMC part

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

Because this file makes a reference to mmc.txt and the core properties described
by mmc.txt are not added in ti-omap-hsmmc.txt

>
> 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?
>

When ti,non-removable was added, Only OMAP platform that had eMMC was that on OMAP4
where power to eMMC cannot be switched off without sending CMD5 sleep command,
so no_regulator_off_init was needed to get it detected during boot.

Now start using generic non-removable for all removable cards which do not
have such limitation.

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