Hi Uffe, > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 5:41 AM > To: Yangbo Lu; Michael Ellerman; Arnd Bergmann; Ulf Hansson > Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc- > dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Xiaobo Xie > Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] powerpc/fsl: move mpc85xx.h to > include/linux/fsl > > On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 05:57 +0000, Yangbo Lu wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 8:38 AM > > > To: Yangbo Lu; Michael Ellerman; Arnd Bergmann; Ulf Hansson > > > Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc- > > > dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] powerpc/fsl: move mpc85xx.h to > > > include/linux/fsl > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 06:12 +0000, Yangbo Lu wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:45 AM > > > > > To: Michael Ellerman; Arnd Bergmann > > > > > Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > > linuxppc- dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > > > Yangbo Lu > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] powerpc/fsl: move mpc85xx.h to > > > > > include/linux/fsl > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 20:26 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Scott Wood (2016-07-21 04:31:48) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 13:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 9:50:21 PM CEST Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: yangbo lu <yangbo.lu@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Move mpc85xx.h to include/linux/fsl and rename it to > > > > > > > > > svr.h as a common header file. This SVR numberspace is > > > > > > > > > used on some ARM chips as well as PPC, and even to check > > > > > > > > > for a PPC SVR multi-arch drivers would otherwise need to > > > > > > > > > ifdef the header inclusion and all references to the SVR > symbols. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > [scottwood: update description] > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As discussed before, please don't introduce yet another > > > > > > > > vendor specific way to match a SoC ID from a device driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've posted a patch for an extension to the soc_device > > > > > > > > infrastructure to allow comparing the running SoC to a > > > > > > > > table of devices, use that instead. > > > > > > > As I asked before, in which relevant maintainership capacity > > > > > > > are you NACKing this? > > > > > > I'll nack the powerpc part until you guys can agree. > > > > > OK, I've pulled these patches out. > > > > > > > > > > For the MMC issue I suggest using ifdef CONFIG_PPC and > > > > > mfspr(SPRN_SVR) like the clock driver does[1] and we can revisit > > > > > the issue if/when we need to do something similar on an ARM chip. > > > > [Lu Yangbo-B47093] I remembered that Uffe had opposed us to > > > > introduce > > > > non- generic header files(like '#include <asm/mpc85xx.h>') in mmc > > > > driver initially. So I think it will not be accepted to use ifdef > > > > CONFIG_PPC and mfspr(SPRN_SVR)... > > > > And this method still couldn’t get SVR of ARM chip now. > > > Right, as I said we'll have to revisit the issue if/when we have the > > > same problem on an ARM chip. That also applies if the PPC ifdef is > > > still getting NACKed from the MMC side. > > [Lu Yangbo-B47093] It's not clear for me about your idea :( Do you > > mean we can still use this method, or not ? > > I think Uffe had opposed to use ifdef CONFIG_PPC and mfspr(SPRN_SVR). > > Is there any solution to resolve ? > > :) > > As I said, I'm OK with using the SPR. It's up to you to find out whether > it's still unacceptable with the MMC maintainers given all the discussion > (it would be the quickest way to get the workaround enabled), or just go > with the method below. [Lu Yangbo-B47093] As you know, this patchset(as below) has been discussed for more than one year. What I want is just to add a fix for an specific soc revision. Yangbo Lu (7): Documentation: DT: update Freescale DCFG compatible ARM64: dts: ls2080a: add device configuration node soc: fsl: add GUTS driver for QorIQ platforms dt: move guts devicetree doc out of powerpc directory powerpc/fsl: move mpc85xx.h to include/linux/fsl MAINTAINERS: add entry for Freescale SoC drivers mmc: sdhci-of-esdhc: fix host version for T4240-R1.0-R2.0 But we have to abandon it since Arnd strongly disagree our guts driver method to get soc revision. Now I have to ask you to reconsider the original method to get soc revison since we really have no better idea. As Scott suggested above, use ifdef CONFIG_PPC and mfspr(SPRN_SVR) like the clock driver does to get SVR. It's quickest way to resolve our esdhc issue. Could you reconsider to use this? Although Arnd provided another new method by sending a proof-of-concept patch as below, there were still many controversial points. I'm worried that would be discussed for a quite long time like the guts driver. [PATCH 1/4] base: soc: introduce soc_device_match() interface [PATCH 2/4] soc: fsl: add GUTS driver for QorIQ platforms [PATCH 3/4] mmc: sdhci-of-esdhc: fix host version for T4240-R1.0-R2.0 [PATCH 4/4] Revert "powerpc/fsl: Move fsl_guts.h out of arch/powerpc" Anyway, what I want is just to fix the esdhc issue ASAP. Uffe, Could you reconsider whether you could accept the way using ifdef CONFIG_PPC and mfspr(SPRN_SVR)? Or do you have any suggestion. I will appreciate your suggestion. Thanks a lot. - Yangbo > > > > > Any other suggestion here? > > > The other option is to try to come up with something that fits into > > > Arnd's framework while addressing the concerns I raised. The soc_id > > > string should be well-structured to avoid mismatches and > > > compatibility problems (especially since it would get exposed to > > > userspace). Maybe something like: > > > > > > svr:<SVR minus E bit>,svre:<full SVR including E bit>,name:<soc > > > name>,die:<soc die name>,rev:X.Y,<tag1>,<tag2>,<...>, > > [Lu Yangbo-B47093] The soc_device_attribut struct is defined as below. > > struct soc_device_attribute { > > const char *machine; > > const char *family; > > const char *revision; > > const char *soc_id; > > }; > > > > We can put the 'model' in root node of dts as machine, put 'Freescale > QorIQ' > > as family, > > I'd just put "QorIQ" to avoid the question of whether to use "Freescale" > or "NXP". > > > and put x.x as revision. Is it ok? > > As you suggested, you like to use below string as soc_id. It's easy to > > get svr, but how does the software know the name and die, and put them > > into this string ? It's a large code to define them. > > Yes, there would need to be a table in the guts driver for each SVR. If > the SVR isn't found in the table then the soc_id would only contain the > svr: and > svre: fields. > > > > > > > svr:<SVR minus E bit>,svre:<full SVR including E bit>,name:<soc > > > name>,die:<soc die name>,rev:X.Y,<tag1>,<tag2>,<...>, > > Should we remove rev here since there is also a revision member? > > Yes, I forgot there was a revision field -- it should go there obviously. > > > Regarding the guts_init, we still call guts_init and then match the > > soc, or we change to use platform driver? > > Or do you know any better place to call guts_init to initialize only > once? > > Use a platform driver for now. If we ever need to check an ARM SVR in > the clock driver or similar place, then Arnd can explain what he wants us > to do then :-) > > -Scott ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��i��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
