On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:39:20PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:38:00AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> On 01/20/2014 05:39 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:29:02PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> >> When device is booted using devicetree, platforms impacted by > >> >> Erratum 2.1.1.128 is not detected easily in the mmc driver. This erratum > >> >> indicates that the module cannot do multi-block transfers. > >> >> > >> >> Handle this by providing a boolean flag to indicate to driver that it is > >> >> working on a hardware with mentioned limitation. > >> > > >> > sure there's no way of reading the revision register to figure this one > >> > out without having to add a new DT attribute ? > >> > > >> I did a quick patch to read the Module revision register: > >> http://slexy.org/view/s21TKvlWlR > >> > >> sdp2430: Revision: 1.2, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > >> > >> OMAP3430-ldp: (ES2.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > >> SDP3430:(ES3.0) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > >> AM3517-evm: (ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > >> AM3517-crane:(ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > >> > >> AM37x-evm: (ES1.2) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > >> OMAP3630-beag-xm (ES1.2): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt > >> > >> am335x-evm:(ES1.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt > >> am335x-sk: (ES2.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt > >> am335x-beaglebone-black:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal > >> interrupt > >> > >> sdp4430.txt: (ES2.2): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt > >> > >> OMAP4460-panda-es (ES1.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt > >> > >> OMAP5uevm:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt > >> dra7-evm (es1.1): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt > >> > >> > >> OMAP3430-ldp seems to be the only one impacted with module revision > >> 2.6 -> so using revision information is not really helpful here. Hence > >> the usage of a flag in dt attribute to indicate hardware impacted by > >> erratum. > > > > alright, that's too bad. Seems like revision in this module isn't very > > useful :-( > > Can I take that as an acked-by? sure Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
