On 1 June 2014 11:23, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 05/31/2014 10:13 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> The following existing MMC host controller bindings use slot subnodes: >>> >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc.txt >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/k3-dw-mshc.txt >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/exynos-dw-mshc.txt >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/socfpga-dw-mshc.txt >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/atmel-hsmci.txt >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/rockchip-dw-mshc.txt >>> >>> This commit documents this practice in the standard mmc bindings >>> documentation. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> There are today only two drivers that use this kind of binding, dw_mmc >> and the at91 one. > > > Correct. > > >> Neither seems to actually ever have been used with >> more than one slot. I doubt anyone building an exynos-based system >> will ever do a multi-slot solution, and it seems that the at91 driver >> doesn't actually handle more than one slot. >> >> I'm personally not that excited about complicating the bindings by >> opening up for this -- I would rather work towards removing the >> concept of slots if it's one of those things that are going to remain >> unused. We have actually been talking about reworking the dw_mmc >> binding to remove the slot concept (and simplify the driver by doing >> so). > > > I'm fine with removing the slot subnode, I added it because of it being > brought up in the powerup sequence discussion. I explicitly asked there > if adding such a subnode level was seen as desirable but nobody > answered :| > > Anyways, either way works for me. I can do a v3 dropping the slot subnode > level again. I would really like to move forward with a decision on how-to > represent non probable info for sdio devices in device nodes. So do you > have any other remarks other then that the slot subnode should be dropped ? > And if not can you please review and ack (*) v3 of this patch-set once > I've send it? > > Chris Ball and Ulf Hansson, what is your take on this, are you willing to > take this patch set? And do you want it with or without the slot subnodes ? I certainly appreciate you working actively on this Hans, I will look into the patchset as soon as I can. I share Olof's view about the slot nodes, we must not add DT bindings that isn't really needed. Regarding the slot subnodes; Jaehoon Chung recently posted a patchset for adding the parsing of it, intended for dwmmc. I withdraw my ack for it, and let's try to go in the other direction instead. [PATCHv3 0/4] mmc: fixed the mmc_of_parse for dwmmc. Thus I suggest we should clean-up host drivers to support only one card per host, and entirely skip the slot concept. Kind regards Uffe > > Thanks & Regards, > > Hans > > > *) Assuming you don't find any issues -- 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
