On 08/19/2016 07:05 AM, Jaedon Shin wrote: > Hi Ulf, > >> On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 19 August 2016 at 04:25, Jaedon Shin <jaedon.shin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi Alan, >>> >>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 11:27 PM, Alan Cooper <alcooperx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> It would be better to make this a MIPS only setting because this issue >>>> only exists for MIPS chips and some newer ARM chips will support 64 >>>> bit DMA. >>>> Also, since there's been a general effort to reduce the use QUIRKs, >>>> you could clear the SDHCI_CAN_64BIT in CAPS1 instead of using the >>>> QUIRK. >>>> >>>> @@ -101,6 +101,9 @@ static int sdhci_brcmstb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> host->caps1 = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_CAPABILITIES_1); >>>> host->caps1 &= ~(SDHCI_SUPPORT_SDR50 | SDHCI_SUPPORT_SDR104 | >>>> SDHCI_SUPPORT_DDR50); >>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_MIPS) >>>> + host->caps1 &= ~SDHCI_CAN_64BIT; >>>> +#endif >>>> host->quirks |= SDHCI_QUIRK_MISSING_CAPS | >>>> SDHCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_TIMEOUT_VAL; >>> >>> It's better to me, but we should use host->cap instead of host->cap1. I will update >>> patch with your comment. >> >> Please, then also send this to the public linux-mmc list. >> >> Kind regards >> Uffe >> > > I'm sorry I could not add the public linux-mmc list this mail thread, but > I have already sent the updated patch with linux-mmc. > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9289189/ Humm, is not this one of these cases where we would expect the compatible string to dictacte whether enabling 64_BIT_DMA makes sense or not? The patch is technically correct though. -- Florian -- 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
