Hi Stephen,
On 11/10/2016 2:13 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 11/09, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On 11/9/2016 4:36 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 11/07, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
index 42f42aa..32b0b79 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
@@ -58,11 +58,17 @@
#define CORE_DLL_CONFIG 0x100
#define CORE_DLL_STATUS 0x108
+#define CORE_DLL_CONFIG_2 0x1b4
+#define CORE_FLL_CYCLE_CNT BIT(18)
+#define CORE_DLL_CLOCK_DISABLE BIT(21)
+
#define CORE_VENDOR_SPEC 0x10c
#define CORE_CLK_PWRSAVE BIT(1)
#define CORE_VENDOR_SPEC_CAPABILITIES0 0x11c
+#define TCXO_FREQ 19200000
TCXO_FREQ could change based on the board. For example, IPQ has
it as 25 MHz.
Actually not sure of the proper way on how to get this freq in driver
today. We may use xo_board clock but, it is not available for all boards
except 8996/8916 I guess.
Also, there is no sdhc for IPQ board and for all other boards
TCXO_FREQ is same where sdhci-msm driver is used. For that purpose
this was defined here for sdhci-msm driver.
Do you think in that case we should keep it this way for now and
later change if a need arise to change the TCXO_FREQ ?
We've added xo_board (or cxo_board/pxo_board) to all the qcom
platforms upstream, so there should always be something to
reference in the dts and call clk_get_rate() on. So I would add
it to the binding as another clock and then use that instead of
hardcoding the value. That's much more flexible in case this
changes in the future.
Sure, I have addressed this in v7 as per your above comment.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
