Hi,
On Fri, Sep 21 2012, r66093@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,35 @@ static void esdhc_of_resume(struct sdhci_host *host)
> }
> #endif
>
> +static const u32 non_cmd23_processor_table[] = {
> + /* P1020 Dual/Single core */
> + 0x80EC00, 0x80E400, 0x80ED00, 0x80E500,
> + /* P1021 Dual/Single core */
> + 0x80EC01, 0x80E401, 0x80ED01, 0x80E501,
> + /* P1022 Dual/Single core */
> + 0x80EE00, 0x80E600, 0x80EF00, 0x80E700,
> + /* P1024 Dual/Single core */
> + 0x80EC02, 0x80E402, 0x80ED02, 0x80E502,
> + /* P1025 Dual/Single core */
> + 0x80EC03, 0x80E403, 0x80ED03, 0x80E503,
> + /* P4080 and P4040 */
> + 0x820000, 0x820800, 0x820100, 0x820900
I don't see how this method improves on either of the previous two we've
discussed. If anything, Kumar's suggested method seems better than this
one: it detected the MMC IP revision, which I'd expect to be more
reliable than building a list of which SoCs contain that IP.
Why is this better than using DT or detecting the MMC revision?
Thanks,
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
