Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] mmc: bcm2835: Add new driver for the sdhost controller.

[Eric Anholt]

Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> hat am 1. MÃrz 2017 um 19:00 geschrieben:
>> 
>> 
>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > From: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > The 2835 has two SD controllers: The Arasan sdhci controller (supported
>> > by the iproc driver) and a custom sdhost controller.  This patch adds a
>> > driver for the latter.
>> >
>> > The sdhci controller supports both sdcard and sdio.  The sdhost
>> > controller supports the sdcard only, but has better performance.  Also
>> > note that the rpi3 has sdio wifi, so driving the sdcard with the sdhost
>> > controller allows to use the sdhci controller for wifi support.
>> >
>> > The configuration is done by devicetree via pin muxing.  Both SD
>> > controller are available on the same pins (2 pin groups = pin 22 to 27 +
>> > pin 48 to 53).  So it's possible to use both SD controllers at the same
>> > time with different pin groups.
>> >
>> > The code was originally written by Phil Elwell in the downstream
>> > Rasbperry Pi tree, and I did a major cleanup on it (+319, -707 lines
>> > out of the original 2055) for inclusion.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> Ulf, what do you need done to this driver patch before it can go in?
>> The commit message seems like it could use some rewriting at this point
>> (Personally I would drop the detailed changelogs from Stefan and Gerd,
>> updating the last paragraph here to give them credit), but what's
>> important to me is getting the driver in so that distros don't have to
>> carry this patch for wifi support.
>
> I'm still working on 3 small patches for this driver:
>
> 1. trivial error in a register comment
> 2. ignore SDCMD_FAIL_FLAG during bcm2835_finish_command (downstream [1])
> 3. remove unnecessary call to bcm2835_reset_internal
>
> I plan to submit them on Friday.
>
> [1] - https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/commit/711cade866c9f865f9b283c9369e9486f27d1fec

Should any of those changes block merging the current code, though?  It
doesn't sound like it to me.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature