On 24/11/16 15:34, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 24 November 2016 at 13:41, Ziji Hu <huziji@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2016/11/24 18:43, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 31 October 2016 at 12:09, Gregory CLEMENT
>>> <gregory.clement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> From: Ziji Hu <huziji@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> +static int xenon_start_signal_voltage_switch(struct mmc_host *mmc,
>>>> + struct mmc_ios *ios)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct sdhci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
>>>> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>>>> + struct sdhci_xenon_priv *priv = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Before SD/SDIO set signal voltage, SD bus clock should be
>>>> + * disabled. However, sdhci_set_clock will also disable the Internal
>>>> + * clock in mmc_set_signal_voltage().
>>>
>>> If that's the case then that is wrong in the generic sdhci code.
>>> What's the reason why it can't be fixed there instead of having this
>>> workaround?
>>>
>> In my very own opinion, SD Spec doesn't specify whether SDCLK should be
>> enabled or not during power setting.
>> Enabling SDCLK might be a special condition only required by our SDHC.
>> I try to avoid breaking other vendors' SDHC functionality
>> if their SDHCs require SDCLK disabled.
>> Thus I prefer to keep it inside our SDHC driver.
>
> I let Adrian comment on this.
>
> For sure we should avoid breaking other sdhci variant, but on the
> other hand *if* the generic code is wrong we should fix it!
Yes, this looks like something that could perhaps be fixed in sdhci. I will
look into it.
--
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
