Hi Nishanth, On 25/01/21 7:21 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 19:12-20210125, Aswath Govindraju wrote: >> Hi Nishanth, >> >> On 22/01/21 11:36 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On 21:54-20210122, Aswath Govindraju wrote: >>>> The following series of patches >>>> - adds support for HS200 and HS400 speed modes in MMCSD0 subsystem >>>> - adds support for UHS-I speed modes in MMCSD1 subsystem >>>> >>>> Aswath Govindraju (2): >>>> arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for HS200 and HS400 modes >>>> in MMCSD0 subsystem >>>> arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1 >>>> subsystem >>> >>> >>> Just a curious couple of questions: >>> Does squashing both the patches create a problem for understanding or a >>> later bisect? I kind of thought these mostly go hand in hand between the >>> instances, am I mistaken? >>> >> >> Yes, they can be squashed. I post a respin doing this. > > Thanks. > >> >>> Are there any otap delay params update needed or the defaults are good >>> to go? >>> >> >> The otap values are already up-to-date with the data sheet and don't >> need updation. > > Thanks for the clarification. > >> >>> Will also help to provide some verification log along with this. >>> >> >> May I know what sort of logs would be best to provide. Would enumeration >> logs during boot suffice ? >> >> Like this, >> https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/v9NRV7GwMw/ ? > > That just says we detected the cards, no? > I thought we had tests around this? Something including /sys/kernel/debug/mmc*/ios > > Something that demonstrates that this actually runs at the claimed > speeds? That would be nice on linux-next, if possible as well.. > Yes there are tests which confirm that claimed speeds are functional. I will add them in the respin. Thanks, Aswath
