On 19 April 2016 at 11:42, Olliver Schinagl <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On 19-04-16 11:29, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> >> On 19 April 2016 at 09:12, Olliver Schinagl <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> In patch 81f8a7be66 Hans de Goede added a patch to allow marking an mmc >>> device as to having an broken HPI implementation. After talking some >>> with Hans, we now think it is actually the mmc controller that can be >>> broken and not support broken HPI's. >> >> I don't want us to invent a DT binding for something you *think* is a >> HW controller issue. >> >> Have you really excluded that this isn't a software issue? Me >> personally haven't been using HPI that much so I can't really tell >> about the code robustness from the mmc core (mmc protocol point of >> view). > > Well this patch goes hand in hand so to speak with the broken-hpi patch > introduced by him, he did most of the investigation. We just discussed how > to handle it and asked me to cook up the patch. Well, my point is that it's more understandable about having a broken HPI implementation for eMMC cards, but for host controllers I am not so sure. I don't think there is an electrical change required by the host controller to support HPI, is just like any other command, right? Unless I am missing something, of course. 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
