[PATCH 4/4] arm: mvebu: Espressobin: Detect presence of emmc at runtime

Stefan Roese
2020-12-03T16:30:44Z

On 03.12.20 16:56, Pali Roh?r wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 December 2020 15:35:08 Andre Heider wrote:
>> On 25/11/2020 19:20, Pali Roh?r wrote:
>>> Try to initialize emmc in board_late_init() and if it fails then we know
>>> that emmc device is not connected.
>>>
>>> This allows to use in U-Boot just one DTS file for all Espressobin variants
>>> and also to correctly set fdtfile env variable for Linux kernel.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pali Roh?r <pali@kernel.org>
>>> Tested-by: G?rald Kerma <gerald@gk2.net>
>>
>> Small nit below, with that:
>> Reviewed-by: Andre Heider <a.heider@gmail.com>
>>
>>> ---
>>> board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-37xx/board.c | 6 +++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-37xx/board.c b/board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-37xx/board.c
>>> index 73d69e0388..f67b04b78c 100644
>>> --- a/board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-37xx/board.c
>>> +++ b/board/Marvell/mvebu_armada-37xx/board.c
>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>> #include <env.h>
>>> #include <i2c.h>
>>> #include <init.h>
>>> +#include <mmc.h>
>>> #include <phy.h>
>>> #include <asm/io.h>
>>> #include <asm/arch/cpu.h>
>>> @@ -83,6 +84,7 @@ int board_init(void)
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INIT
>>> int board_late_init(void)
>>> {
>>> + struct mmc *mmc_dev;
>>> bool ddr4, emmc;
>>> if (env_get("fdtfile"))
>>> @@ -95,7 +97,9 @@ int board_late_init(void)
>>> ddr4 = ((readl(A3700_CH0_MC_CTRL2_REG) >> A3700_MC_CTRL2_SDRAM_TYPE_OFFS)
>>> & A3700_MC_CTRL2_SDRAM_TYPE_MASK) == A3700_MC_CTRL2_SDRAM_TYPE_DDR4;
>>> - emmc = of_machine_is_compatible("globalscale,espressobin-emmc");
>>> + /* eMMC is mmc dev num 1 */
>>> + mmc_dev = find_mmc_device(1);
>>> + emmc = (mmc_dev && mmc_init(mmc_dev) == 0);
>>
>> I think you meant "mmc_dev && (mmc_init(mmc_dev) == 0);"?
>
> Hm... no... I usually do not put parenthesis around || and && operators.
>
> But both variants are same right?

Yours still has parenthesis around the (a && b) part, which is not
needed. But this is nitpicking AFAIAC.

> If U-Boot coding style prefers second (your) variant, I do not have
> a problem to change it.

checkpatch should complain if something does not match the coding style.

> Stefan, do you need to change this styling?

No, not from my point of view.

Thanks,
Stefan