[U-Boot] fsl_esdhc.c: eMMC 4.4 support?

[U-Boot] fsl_esdhc.c: eMMC 4.4 support?

[Dirk Behme]

With the two commits

http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009.08&id=1bc5e5f2cee211a74ee79e0eb5f7f37a3db387f4

http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009.08&id=82102d3fdeae0dcd79d9b3ab7daa96bebd5ad290

the old Freescale U-Boot has eMMC 4.4 support.

Our mainline drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c doesn't seem to support this.

Does anybody work on porting this to the mainline fsl_esdhc.c? Or any 
other pointers which might help?

Unfortunately, Freescale doesn't use the fsl_esdhc.c. They put their own 
  imx_esdhc.c in parallel. This does make porting even harder :(

Many thanks and best regards

Dirk

[U-Boot] fsl_esdhc.c: eMMC 4.4 support?

[Andy Fleming]

Yes, that's very annoying. Of course, Freescale *does* use fsl_esdhc,
but for Power Architecture. I know that changes were submitted to
support i.MX on fsl_esdhc, too, so I don't know why they've opted to
use their own file in that tree. Hopefully they can be convinced to
add support to mainline.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@de.bosch.com> wrote:
>
> With the two commits
>
> http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009.08&id=1bc5e5f2cee211a74ee79e0eb5f7f37a3db387f4
>
> http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009.08&id=82102d3fdeae0dcd79d9b3ab7daa96bebd5ad290
>
> the old Freescale U-Boot has eMMC 4.4 support.
>
> Our mainline drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c doesn't seem to support this.
>
> Does anybody work on porting this to the mainline fsl_esdhc.c? Or any other
> pointers which might help?
>
> Unfortunately, Freescale doesn't use the fsl_esdhc.c. They put their own
> ?imx_esdhc.c in parallel. This does make porting even harder :(
>
> Many thanks and best regards
>
> Dirk

[U-Boot] fsl_esdhc.c: eMMC 4.4 support?

[Dirk Behme]

On 23.02.2012 22:45, Andy Fleming wrote:
> Yes, that's very annoying. Of course, Freescale *does* use fsl_esdhc,
> but for Power Architecture. I know that changes were submitted to
> support i.MX on fsl_esdhc, too, so I don't know why they've opted to
> use their own file in that tree. Hopefully they can be convinced to
> add support to mainline.

I'm not sure if they can be convinced :(

Anyway, what would be the preferred way to improve the xxx_esdhc in 
mainline U-Boot?

Both, the Freescale U-Boot [1] and Barebox [2] have a imx-esdhc.c. With 
this, the options I see for mainline U-Boot are

a) to port the Freescale/Barebox imx-esdhc.c changes/improvements into 
U-Boot's fsl_esdhc.c

or

b) create a new imx-esdhc.c in U-Boot, too.

?

Best regards

Dirk

[1] 
http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/tree/drivers/mmc?h=imx_v2009.08&id=1bc5e5f2cee211a74ee79e0eb5f7f37a3db387f4

[2] 
http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=barebox.git;a=tree;f=drivers/mci;h=5fc0778b7fafc6f45fa727eaae21ff3908c18730;hb=HEAD

> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@de.bosch.com> wrote:
>> With the two commits
>>
>> http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009.08&id=1bc5e5f2cee211a74ee79e0eb5f7f37a3db387f4
>>
>> http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009.08&id=82102d3fdeae0dcd79d9b3ab7daa96bebd5ad290
>>
>> the old Freescale U-Boot has eMMC 4.4 support.
>>
>> Our mainline drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c doesn't seem to support this.
>>
>> Does anybody work on porting this to the mainline fsl_esdhc.c? Or any other
>> pointers which might help?
>>
>> Unfortunately, Freescale doesn't use the fsl_esdhc.c. They put their own
>>  imx_esdhc.c in parallel. This does make porting even harder :(
>>
>> Many thanks and best regards

[U-Boot] fsl_esdhc.c: eMMC 4.4 support?

[stefano babic]

Am 24/02/2012 08:20, schrieb Dirk Behme:
> On 23.02.2012 22:45, Andy Fleming wrote:
>> Yes, that's very annoying. Of course, Freescale *does* use fsl_esdhc,
>> but for Power Architecture. I know that changes were submitted to
>> support i.MX on fsl_esdhc, too, so I don't know why they've opted to
>> use their own file in that tree. Hopefully they can be convinced to
>> add support to mainline.
> 
> I'm not sure if they can be convinced :(
> 
> Anyway, what would be the preferred way to improve the xxx_esdhc in
> mainline U-Boot?

Sorry, but support for SDHC *is* already in u-boot. The fsl_esdhc.c
supports *both* architectures.

> 
> Both, the Freescale U-Boot [1] and Barebox [2] have a imx-esdhc.c. With
> this, the options I see for mainline U-Boot are

There are a lot of other drivers that are duplicated in the sources
delivered by Freescale [1]. This is not a good reason to do the same in
mainline. And Freescale's sources do not use the MMC framework we
currently use, as fas as I remember.

> 
> a) to port the Freescale/Barebox imx-esdhc.c changes/improvements into
> U-Boot's fsl_esdhc.c

Yes. We have already profit in the past from changes done for PowerPC,
that fixed the same issues for i.MX. Are you really sure that the
missing feature (8 bit support) cannot be used on PowerPc, too ?

I am for maintaining one single driver and avoid as much as possible to
duplicate code when it is not strictly needed.

> 
> or
> 
> b) create a new imx-esdhc.c in U-Boot, too.

No, don't do it. fsl_esdhc.c driver was modified in the past to add
support for i.MX *after* Freescale published imx-esdh.c. And also at
that time, the decision was to modify the driver for i.MX instead of
adding a new one.

Best regards,
Stefano Babic

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================