Re: [PATCH 05/11] mmc: sunxi: Support controllers that can use both old and new timings

[Maxime Ripard]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:59:23PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:42:56PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >> On the SoCs that introduced the new timing mode for MMC controllers,
> >> both the old (where the clock delays are set in the CCU) and new
> >> (where the clock delays are set in the MMC controller) timing modes
> >> are available, and we have to support them both. However there are
> >> two bits that control which mode is active. One is in the CCU, the
> >> other is in the MMC controller. The settings on both sides must be
> >> the same, or nothing will work.
> >>
> >> The CCU's get/set_phase callbacks return -ENOTSUPP when the new
> >> timing mode is active. This provides a way to know which mode is
> >> active on that side, and we can set the bit on the MMC controller
> >> side accordingly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c
> >> index 0fb4e4c119e1..56e45c65b52d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c
> >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> >>  #include <linux/err.h>
> >>
> >>  #include <linux/clk.h>
> >> +#include <linux/clk/sunxi-ng.h>
> >>  #include <linux/gpio.h>
> >>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> >> @@ -259,7 +260,7 @@ struct sunxi_mmc_cfg {
> >>       /* Does DATA0 needs to be masked while the clock is updated */
> >>       bool mask_data0;
> >>
> >> -     bool needs_new_timings;
> >> +     bool has_new_timings;
> >
> > I think we should have both, it's a bit different. Newer SoCs like the
> > A64 can only operate using new timings, while the older ones can
> > operate in both modes.
> >
> > In one case, we're forced to use it, in the other one it's a
> > policy. We should differentiate both cases.
> 
> For the A64's case, the limit is implied by not having any clk_delays.

FWIW, I'm really not a big fan of that either :)

Explicit is better than implicit.©

> But yes, I'll keep "needs_new_timings", and rename the new option to
> "has_timing_switch" to make things clearer.

Great, thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature