On Sep 23, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Huang Changming-R66093 wrote: > > > Best Regards > Jerry Huang > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-mmc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-mmc- >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Huang Changming-R66093 >> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:37 AM >> To: Kumar Gala; Chris Ball >> Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Xie Shaohui-B21989; Anton Vorontsov >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] powerpc/esdhc: disable CMD23 for some Freescale >> SoCs >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 2:36 AM >>> To: Chris Ball >>> Cc: Huang Changming-R66093; linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Huang >>> Changming- R66093; Xie Shaohui-B21989; Anton Vorontsov >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/esdhc: disable CMD23 for some >>> Freescale SoCs >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> MPC8536 and P4080 have the same IP version (VVN1.0), but MPC8536 support >> CMD23, P4080 can't, how to handle these two silicones? >> For the future silicones, no one can make sure all silicones support >> CMD23. >> don't say almost 0%, which just is the assumption, otherwise, why p4080 >> can't support it and mpc8536 can? > MPC837x has the same VVN1.0 as the MPC8536 and p4080, which supports CMD23, too. So I checked on actual boards and got: MPC8536 - 00000001 MPC837x - 00000001 P4080 - 00001201 So I don't think you are correct about them reporting the same version number. (I think the manual for P4080 may be incorrect). Here's the other SoCs that I verified: 8536 = 00000001 2020 = 00000101 8569 = 00000101 4080 = 00001201 1021 = 00001201 1022 = 00001201 5040 = 00001301 2041 = 00001301 5020 = 00001301 1010 = 00001301 9131 = 00001301 - 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
