Hi, On 06/02/2014 10:29 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 1 June 2014 11:23, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> On 05/31/2014 10:13 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The following existing MMC host controller bindings use slot subnodes: >>>> >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc.txt >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/k3-dw-mshc.txt >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/exynos-dw-mshc.txt >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/socfpga-dw-mshc.txt >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/atmel-hsmci.txt >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/rockchip-dw-mshc.txt >>>> >>>> This commit documents this practice in the standard mmc bindings >>>> documentation. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> >>> There are today only two drivers that use this kind of binding, dw_mmc >>> and the at91 one. >> >> >> Correct. >> >> >>> Neither seems to actually ever have been used with >>> more than one slot. I doubt anyone building an exynos-based system >>> will ever do a multi-slot solution, and it seems that the at91 driver >>> doesn't actually handle more than one slot. >>> >>> I'm personally not that excited about complicating the bindings by >>> opening up for this -- I would rather work towards removing the >>> concept of slots if it's one of those things that are going to remain >>> unused. We have actually been talking about reworking the dw_mmc >>> binding to remove the slot concept (and simplify the driver by doing >>> so). >> >> >> I'm fine with removing the slot subnode, I added it because of it being >> brought up in the powerup sequence discussion. I explicitly asked there >> if adding such a subnode level was seen as desirable but nobody >> answered :| >> >> Anyways, either way works for me. I can do a v3 dropping the slot subnode >> level again. I would really like to move forward with a decision on how-to >> represent non probable info for sdio devices in device nodes. So do you >> have any other remarks other then that the slot subnode should be dropped ? >> And if not can you please review and ack (*) v3 of this patch-set once >> I've send it? >> >> Chris Ball and Ulf Hansson, what is your take on this, are you willing to >> take this patch set? And do you want it with or without the slot subnodes ? > > I certainly appreciate you working actively on this Hans, I will look > into the patchset as soon as I can. Thanks. If I read you correctly below, then you want the slot nodes to be removed, correct? In that case it is probably best if you wait reviewing until I've done a v3, with the slot nodes removed. I hope to find some time to do this this evening (CET). Regards, Hans > > I share Olof's view about the slot nodes, we must not add DT bindings > that isn't really needed. > > Regarding the slot subnodes; Jaehoon Chung recently posted a patchset > for adding the parsing of it, intended for dwmmc. I withdraw my ack > for it, and let's try to go in the other direction instead. > > [PATCHv3 0/4] mmc: fixed the mmc_of_parse for dwmmc. > > Thus I suggest we should clean-up host drivers to support only one > card per host, and entirely skip the slot concept. > > Kind regards > Uffe > >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> >> Hans >> >> >> *) Assuming you don't find any issues -- 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
