Hi, On 05/23/2014 06:47 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 07:20:55PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> On 22.05.2014 13:38, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> On 05/22/2014 12:23 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> snip >> >>>>> I've been thinking a bit about this, and it is a non trivial problem since >>>>> sdio devices are normally instantiated when probed, unlike ie spi devices >>>>> which are instantiated from devicetree. >>>>> >>>>> Adding device tree instantiation of sdio devices seems like a bad idea, as >>>>> then we get 2 vastly different device instantiation paths. Still we need some >>>>> way to get power and clks setup before the mmc host initializes. >> >> What about introducing some extra callbacks to mmc drivers to build >> driver data and control power? > > The MMC bus is probable, and there should be no need to put any information in > the device tree to pair up the right driver with the right device. The only > thing we should need is hardware description w.r.t. reset/power/clock lines. > > It's pretty common during development to have a couple of different vendor > modules. Reset sequences and requirements might not be identical between them, > but in reality they all work well enough using the common settings. > > > Besides, where it ends up in the kernel implementation is mostly irrelevant, in > some ways. We can refactor and move things as needed at any time. The only > thing that needs to be reasonably stable (and/or only be expanded on, not > redefined) is the DT binding. So I'd rather see something KISS go in now, > implementation-wise (with a sane and simple binding), then getting stuck in > this infinite polishing of just how the kernel-side implementation should be. > > This is one of the major missing pieces to make a lot of ARM systems usable > with a mainline kernel, since everybody use some out-of-tree solution today > (not necessarily hacks, but still not shared code). I'd really like to see it > resolved soon. > > I'm OK in principle with Hans' proposed solution, as long as it provides the > properties I need on exynos5250-snow (and the new peach_pit/pi platforms). It would help to know what properties exactly you need, then I can write a proposal for the devicetree bindings documentation. I can also throw in an implementation for bringing up clks before mmc probe, as that is something which I can test, extending that with other properties (ie resets) should be easy (ish). Regards, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
