Hi Thomas, I have a question regarding the bus setup when I use the patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1870231. It configures buses as defined in "pinctrl-0 = ...". But in the function dw_mci_exynos_setup_bus(), it tries again to configure gpios and probing is failed because there is no "gpios = <...>" property. So I guess bus setup has to be ignored when the gpios are configured with pinctrl. What's your advice? Thank you in advance. Dongjin. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Dongjin Kim <tobetter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you for your reviewing, and > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1870231 works. So this change is > needless. > > I had tested with below changes on my hardware. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1904431 > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1920661 > > Best regards, > Dongjin. > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Thomas Abraham > <thomas.abraham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 21 December 2012 09:11, Dongjin Kim <tobetter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This patch adds support for pin configuration using pinctrl subsystem to >>> dw_mmc-exynos driver. The property 'wp-gpios' can be specified for write >>> protect but 'samsung,cd-pinmux-gpio' and gpios used for clock, command and >>> data lines will be ignored. >>> >>> -. 'pinctrl-0' should specify pin control groups (clock, comand and data >>> lines) used for this controller. >>> -. 'pinctrl-names' should contain only one value, 'default'. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dongjin Kim <tobetter@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- >>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c >>> index 4d50da6..d1c9963 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c >>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ >>> #include <linux/mmc/dw_mmc.h> >>> #include <linux/of.h> >>> #include <linux/of_gpio.h> >>> +#include <linux/pinctrl/consumer.h> >>> >>> #include "dw_mmc.h" >>> #include "dw_mmc-pltfm.h" >>> @@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data { >>> u8 ciu_div; >>> u32 sdr_timing; >>> u32 ddr_timing; >>> + struct pinctrl *pctrl; >>> }; >>> >>> static struct dw_mci_exynos_compatible { >>> @@ -84,6 +86,10 @@ static int dw_mci_exynos_priv_init(struct dw_mci *host) >>> priv->ctrl_type = exynos_compat[idx].ctrl_type; >>> } >>> >>> + priv->pctrl = devm_pinctrl_get_select_default(host->dev); >>> + if (IS_ERR(priv->pctrl)) >>> + dev_dbg(host->dev, "no pinctrl node\n"); >>> + >> >> This could have been handled in dw_mci_exynos_setup_bus function. And >> we also need to check if this patch gets merged. >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1870231/. If it gets merged, this >> change can be avoided. >> >>> host->priv = priv; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -149,32 +155,19 @@ static int dw_mci_exynos_parse_dt(struct dw_mci *host) >>> return ret; >>> >>> priv->ddr_timing = SDMMC_CLKSEL_TIMING(timing[0], timing[1], div); >>> + >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> static int dw_mci_exynos_setup_bus(struct dw_mci *host, >>> struct device_node *slot_np, u8 bus_width) >>> { >>> + struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv = host->priv; >>> int idx, gpio, ret; >>> >>> if (!slot_np) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> >>> - /* cmd + clock + bus-width pins */ >>> - for (idx = 0; idx < NUM_PINS(bus_width); idx++) { >>> - gpio = of_get_gpio(slot_np, idx); >>> - if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio)) { >>> - dev_err(host->dev, "invalid gpio: %d\n", gpio); >>> - return -EINVAL; >>> - } >>> - >>> - ret = devm_gpio_request(host->dev, gpio, "dw-mci-bus"); >>> - if (ret) { >>> - dev_err(host->dev, "gpio [%d] request failed\n", gpio); >>> - return -EBUSY; >>> - } >>> - } >>> - >>> gpio = of_get_named_gpio(slot_np, "wp-gpios", 0); >>> if (gpio_is_valid(gpio)) { >>> if (devm_gpio_request(host->dev, gpio, "dw-mci-wp")) >>> @@ -185,9 +178,12 @@ static int dw_mci_exynos_setup_bus(struct dw_mci *host, >>> host->pdata->quirks |= DW_MCI_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT; >>> } >>> >>> - if (host->pdata->quirks & DW_MCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION) >>> + if (!IS_ERR(priv->pctrl)) >>> return 0; >>> >>> + if (host->pdata->quirks & DW_MCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_CARD_DETECTION) >>> + goto setup_bus; >>> + >> >> Why do the entire bus setup if card detection is broken? >> >>> gpio = of_get_named_gpio(slot_np, "samsung,cd-pinmux-gpio", 0); >>> if (gpio_is_valid(gpio)) { >>> if (devm_gpio_request(host->dev, gpio, "dw-mci-cd")) >>> @@ -196,6 +192,22 @@ static int dw_mci_exynos_setup_bus(struct dw_mci *host, >>> dev_info(host->dev, "cd gpio not available"); >>> } >>> >>> + setup_bus: >>> + /* cmd + clock + bus-width pins */ >>> + for (idx = 0; idx < NUM_PINS(bus_width); idx++) { >>> + gpio = of_get_gpio(slot_np, idx); >>> + if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio)) { >>> + dev_err(host->dev, "invalid gpio: %d\n", gpio); >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + >>> + ret = devm_gpio_request(host->dev, gpio, "dw-mci-bus"); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + dev_err(host->dev, "gpio [%d] request failed\n", gpio); >>> + return -EBUSY; >>> + } >>> + } >> >> This change should not have been there. If the mmc bus setup is being >> done using pinctrl framework, this change can be avoided. >> >> Thanks, >> Thomas. >> >>> + >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> -- >>> 1.7.9.5 >>> -- 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
