On 06/02/2014 05:38 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote: > On 06/02/2014 05:29 PM, 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. >> >> 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. > > Well, almost platform is used the only one card per host, although some controller is supported the slot concept. > But we don't know that controller should be used the multi slot per host, in future. > So I think we can't skip the slot concept. If we need to change the dw-mmc controller, let me know, plz. I want to fix this problem before release the 3.16. Actually, i think it can remove the subnode, if ensure not to use multi-slot at dwmmc. Anyway, I will also consider to get more better solution. Thanks for pointing out. Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > > Best Regards, > Jaehoon Chung > >> >> 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
