On 2 June 2014 10:46, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/02/2014 05:38 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >> On 06/02/2014 05:29 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Well, almost platform is used the only one card per host, although some controller is supported the slot concept. >> But we don't know that controller should be used the multi slot per host, in future. >> So I think we can't skip the slot concept. > If we need to change the dw-mmc controller, let me know, plz. > I want to fix this problem before release the 3.16. > Actually, i think it can remove the subnode, if ensure not to use multi-slot at dwmmc. That seems like the best approach. Please try to remove the subnodes and make use of mmc_of_parse, as is. Kind regards Uffe -- 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
