On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Chris Ball wrote:
> 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,
I feel like I missed this patch, but I'd rather we go with the version I sent since the # of IP versions we have is 3 or 4, instead of the 30 or 40 SoCs we have.
- k--
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
