On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:15:19AM +0000, Y.b. Lu wrote:
> > > Not matter it's SD card or eMMC card, if it's on esdhc0, use /dev/mmcblk0.
> > > Not matter it's SD card or eMMC card, if it's on esdhc1, use /dev/mmcblk1.
> >
> > With the note here that you can't actually connect an SD card to eSDHC1,
> > due to the lack of pins for CD/WP.
>
> CD/WP is not essential to support SD card. Both SD/eMMC are supported on both eSDHC controllers.
Let's keep that discussion separate. While in theory you might be right,
I think the real-life complications associated with connecting an eMMC
to eSDHC0 and an SD card to eSDHC1 will make everyone avoid that. So in
practice they are still single-purpose.
> > But it is also natural for a customer to define the indices according to
> > their schematics and what they use. If, say, there is a board that only
> > uses eMMC, I would expect that for the lay person, no one would even bat
> > an eye if that was called /dev/mmcblk0. Whereas, if it was called
> > /dev/mmcblk1 (and there was no /dev/mmcblk0 in the system), maybe you'd
> > have to come up with some explanations which could be avoided.
>
> To make a product friendly to users, it makes sense to define different alias for controller in board dts.
> But it's not the reason to remove the default/natural alias in soc dtsi for two controllers.
> What needs to be done after removing them? Add the same to all other board files?
Yes.
In fact, this is also the reason why we prefer to have:
/soc {
esdhc: mmc@2140000 {
status = "disabled";
};
};
in fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
and
&esdhc {
status = "okay";
};
in fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts
and not the other way around:
/soc {
esdhc: mmc@2140000 {
status = "okay";
};
};
in fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
and
&esdhc {
status = "disabled";
};
in fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts
So, in line with that, I think that the entity that enables the node
should also define the alias.
It's weird to use /delete-property/ if it can be avoided.
