On 10 January 2018 at 19:04, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 18:01 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 10 January 2018 at 16:32, Andy Shevchenko >> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Intel Edison the Broadcom WiFi card, which is connected to SDIO, >> > requires 2.0v, while the host, according to Intel Merrifield TRM, >> > supports 1.8v supply only. > >> > + /* >> > + * Without a regulator, SDHCI does not support 2.0v but we >> > get >> > + * here because we advertised 2.0v support for compatibility >> > + * with the SDIO card's OCR. Map it to 1.8v for the purpose >> > of >> > + * turning on the power. >> > + */ >> > + if (IS_ERR(host->mmc->supply.vmmc) && vdd == >> > ilog2(MMC_VDD_20_21)) >> > + vdd = ilog2(MMC_VDD_165_195); >> >> Why not instead extend the range in sdhci_set_power_noreg() to also >> check for MMC_VDD_20_21? >> >> Or is there a problem with that? > > Do we have any grounds to do this in generic code? > > Moreover, if we check for 2.0v what should we do in generic code? > For my understanding > > case _20_21: > pwr = _180; Yeah, why is that a problem? You should never reach this point, unless the host announce support via the ocr mask, for the _20_21 VDD. What does other variants do in this regards? 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
