Re: [PATCH v5] mmc: OCTEON: Add host driver for OCTEON MMC controller

[Matt Redfearn]

Hi,
I will split the DT binding document into a separate patch, and move the 
legacy FDT patch-up code to
arch/mips/cavium-octeon/octeon-platform.c as suggested by Florian.

Ulf, your objections to the structure of the DT and driver were the only 
driver for the changes v4->v5.
I changed the DT binding and the structure of the driver to more closely 
resemble the atmel-mci driver, which has the same concept of one 
controller, multiple slots.

Thanks,
Matt

On 10/02/16 20:07, David Daney wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 11:01 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 10 February 2016 at 18:36, Matt Redfearn 
> > <matt.redfearn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The OCTEON MMC controller is currently found on cn61XX and cnf71XX
> > > devices.  Device parameters are configured from device tree data.
> > >
> > > eMMC, MMC and SD devices are supported.
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@xxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Chandrakala Chavva <cchavva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leonid Rosenboim <lrosenboim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Swain <pswain@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Williams <aaron.williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > v5:
> > > Incoroprate comments from review
> > > http://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/9558/
> > > - Use standard <bus-width> property instead of <cavium,bus-max-width>.
> > > - Use standard <max-frequency> property instead of <spi-max-frequency>.
> > > - Add octeon_mmc_of_parse_legacy function to deal with the above
> > >    properties, since many devices have shipped with those properties
> > >    embedded in firmware.
> > > - Allow the <vmmc-supply> binding in addition to the legacy
> > >    <gpios-power>.
> > > - Remove the secondary driver for each slot.
> > > - Use core gpio cd/wp handling
> >
> > Seems like you decided to ignore most comments realted to the DT
> > bindings from the earlier version.
> > Although, let's discuss this one more time.
>
> I think you may have misread the patch.  The DT bindings have been
> changed based on the feedback we received on v4.
>
> > Therefore I recomend you to split this patch. DT documentation should
> > be a separate patch preceeding the actual mmc driver patch.
>
> You may have missed it the first time it was posted, but the legacy DT
> bindings have been around for a while.
>
> See:
>
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2012-May/015482.html 
>
>
>
> > The DT patch needs to be acked by the DT maintainers.
>
> The legacy DT has been deployed in firmware for several years now.  We
> are adding more "modern" bindings, and the DT maintainers are
> encouraged to review that portion, but the legacy is what it is and it
> isn't changing.
>
> > Until we somewhat agreed on the DT parts, I am going to defer the
> > in-depth review of the driver code as I have limited bandwidth.
>
> As I stated above, the legacy DT bindings are not changing and must be
> supported.  Waiting for legacy DT bindings to change is equivalent to
> infinite deferral.
>
> > Does that make sense to you?
>
> I understand why you would say this.  However, I think it doesn't
> fully take into account the need to support devices that have already
> been deployed.
>
> That said, Matt really needs to get the DT maintainers reviewing the 
> new DT bindings.
>
>
> David Daney