On Tue, June 03, 2014, Jaehoon Chung wrote: > +Suegnwon Jeon > > On 06/02/2014 05:48 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On 2 June 2014 10:38, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > The mmc core only supports one card per host. > > Right, mmc core supports one card per host, but host controller can be supported the multiple slot, > right? > Of course, it should be handled at host controller, not core. > > > > Adding DT bindings for something that seems unlikely to be supported > > in future, seems like a bad idea. It's better to add it when/if > > needed. > If some SoC use the multiple slot for dw-mmc controller, we can't prevent to use the multiple slot. > So i'm not sure that host controller's subnode didn't need to support. > Right. this is bad idea, i also hope that it will not use the multiple slot at dw-mmc in future. > > To Seungwon, > > how about this? I have no objection to remove multi-slot. It seems not useful considering performance. Above all, there is no actual use case. Thanks, Seungwon Jeon -- 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
