Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: dts: at91: sama5d27_som1_ek: add mmc capabilities for SDMMC0

[Eugen.Hristev]

On 13.08.2019 09:53, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:38:34PM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 09.08.2019 09:23, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:57:30PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 8/08/19 3:42 PM, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:35:43AM +0200, Eugen Hristev - M18282 wrote:
>>>>>> From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add mmc capabilities for SDMMC0 for this board.
>>>>>> With this enabled, eMMC connected card is detected as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mmc0: new DDR MMC card at address 0001
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Acked-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested to have the some insights about the use of sd-uhs-*
>>>>> properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our IP can't deal with 1V8 by itself. It has a 1V8SEL signal which can
>>>>> be used as the logic control input of a mux. So even if the IP claims
>>>>> to support UHS modes, it depends on the board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are the sd-uhs-* properties a way to deal with this? I tend to think no
>>>>> as sdhci_setup_host() will set the caps depending on the content of the
>>>>> capabilities register. Do we have to use the SDHCI_QUIRK_MISSING_CAPS
>>>>> quirk or sdhci-caps/sdhci-caps-mask?
>>>>
>>>> There is "no-1-8-v" which it looks like sdhci-of-at91.c already supports:
>>>>
>>>>     sdhci_at91_probe() -> sdhci_get_of_property() -> sdhci_get_property()
>>>>
>>>>       	if (device_property_present(dev, "no-1-8-v"))
>>>> 		host->quirks2 |= SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V;
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, I forgot this property. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Eugen, do you see cases we can't cover with this property?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For current requirements and driver support, this should be enough.
>>
>> I noticed one thing regarding SD-Cards, if I add property sd-uhs-sdr104
>> the class 10 uhs1 cards are detected as SDR104 . Without this property
>> they are detected as DDR50. Any idea why the difference ? The controller
>> does not claim to have SDR104 support ?  We should add it ?
> 
> With the mainline, our tree or both? In our tree, SDR104 is removed from
> the capabilities.
> 
> Ludovic
> 


Hello Alexandre,

Anything more needed regarding this patch ?

Thanks,
Eugen