From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1259AC10F05 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:00:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4821230FC for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387981AbhAZGYg (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:24:36 -0500 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:38216 "EHLO fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729062AbhAYNov (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:44:51 -0500 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 10PDgvsr022022; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:42:57 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1611582177; bh=d1OxbwVGVoPZKA+7fDtdX5sTY5ftzy3FzxvOCFe04C4=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=siyVWOJpai9utbwFiKVoJS3tWr7ZUKeygpKIkfFxkq0NVt54Iu23yrWOjJ9irZ2ed 16tvK8xSlJNGSnch0vwqMSAAmN6I3Pomy/Tue5wLGEwr4cOZbMItwAmduqjNF+PVcE GDuewV48xOSO5zkIHzf4rJzUFHSRshC5JFskFddk= Received: from DLEE106.ent.ti.com (dlee106.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.36]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 10PDgv2Q107207 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:42:57 -0600 Received: from DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) by DLEE106.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:42:57 -0600 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:42:57 -0600 Received: from [10.250.232.169] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 10PDgrHB116154; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:42:54 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: J7200: Add support for higher speed modes in MMCSD subsystems To: Nishanth Menon CC: Lokesh Vutla , Vignesh Raghavendra , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Tero Kristo , Rob Herring , , , References: <20210122162403.20700-1-a-govindraju@ti.com> <20210122180629.3j3aoueiwiib4gso@cavalier> From: Aswath Govindraju Message-ID: <5341eeb2-e637-424f-3328-60dbddee1376@ti.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:12:52 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210122180629.3j3aoueiwiib4gso@cavalier> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Nishanth, On 22/01/21 11:36 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 21:54-20210122, Aswath Govindraju wrote: >> The following series of patches >> - adds support for HS200 and HS400 speed modes in MMCSD0 subsystem >> - adds support for UHS-I speed modes in MMCSD1 subsystem >> >> Aswath Govindraju (2): >> arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for HS200 and HS400 modes >> in MMCSD0 subsystem >> arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1 >> subsystem > > > Just a curious couple of questions: > Does squashing both the patches create a problem for understanding or a > later bisect? I kind of thought these mostly go hand in hand between the > instances, am I mistaken? > Yes, they can be squashed. I post a respin doing this. > Are there any otap delay params update needed or the defaults are good > to go? > The otap values are already up-to-date with the data sheet and don't need updation. > Will also help to provide some verification log along with this. > May I know what sort of logs would be best to provide. Would enumeration logs during boot suffice ? Like this, https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/v9NRV7GwMw/ ? Thanks, Aswath