Hi Richard, > BTW, Do you know that how to define and pass the kinds of > platform_data-struct special to the board to the sdhci_pltfm.c layer > platform-data struct? I think we should extend the pdata->init call to also have the platform_data as an argument. Then, the platform-specific init routine should have all it needs. Will update that tomorrow. > [<Zhu Richard-r65037>] The one used in sdhci-of-esdhc.c is better than > the one listed abov; it's more logical and clear. :) Good, it seems to be complete, too :) > > I find that the sdhci.c had been support the 8bits bus_width. > > Yes, it was added recently, but it might have issues. See here: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/3370 > [<Zhu Richard-r65037>] Different IC design may have the different > definitions of the bus width configuration in the HOST_CONTROL register. > This is not a big issue; we can handle these differences in the SW. Yes, my point is that we don't handle this at the generic sdhci-core, but at the parts which deal with the platform-specific faul^H^H^H^H... differences ;) > About the 8bits supports, I had been verified this feature on i.MX > platforms for a while. > The MMC cards 8bits mode can work well on some i.MX eSDHC platforms. Why only some? Are the others not working or not tested? > One more suggestion, the caps should be handled carefully, because not > only the caps of the IC design, but also the caps of the board HW design > should be taken care, Could you give an example when it is board-dependent? > [<Zhu Richard-r65037>] I'm checking it, and still trying finding a way > to pass the board related info (such as the WP pins, and bus width to > sdhci-platfm.c layer) See above. And here is my current WIP. I factored out the common stuff from of and pltfm. Furthermore, I addressed Uwe's comments about adding MX35-devices. Expect a few updates (platform-data) tomorrow. http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=wsa/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/pcm043-wip (The old branch is still there, just in case you are working with it) > The host->ops->get_ro should be added into the sdhci.c file although > following the method provided in the RFC patches. How do you think about > that? I agree, that one seems needed. Shall I integrate this into my series or do you want to place this patch ontop of my series? Kind regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
