On 13.08.2019 09:53, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:38:34PM +0000, Eugen.Hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 09.08.2019 09:23, Ludovic Desroches wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:57:30PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>>> On 8/08/19 3:42 PM, Ludovic Desroches wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:35:43AM +0200, Eugen Hristev - M18282 wrote: >>>>>> From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> Add mmc capabilities for SDMMC0 for this board. >>>>>> With this enabled, eMMC connected card is detected as: >>>>>> >>>>>> mmc0: new DDR MMC card at address 0001 >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Acked-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> I am interested to have the some insights about the use of sd-uhs-* >>>>> properties. >>>>> >>>>> Our IP can't deal with 1V8 by itself. It has a 1V8SEL signal which can >>>>> be used as the logic control input of a mux. So even if the IP claims >>>>> to support UHS modes, it depends on the board. >>>>> >>>>> Are the sd-uhs-* properties a way to deal with this? I tend to think no >>>>> as sdhci_setup_host() will set the caps depending on the content of the >>>>> capabilities register. Do we have to use the SDHCI_QUIRK_MISSING_CAPS >>>>> quirk or sdhci-caps/sdhci-caps-mask? >>>> >>>> There is "no-1-8-v" which it looks like sdhci-of-at91.c already supports: >>>> >>>> sdhci_at91_probe() -> sdhci_get_of_property() -> sdhci_get_property() >>>> >>>> if (device_property_present(dev, "no-1-8-v")) >>>> host->quirks2 |= SDHCI_QUIRK2_NO_1_8_V; >>>> >>> >>> Right, I forgot this property. Thanks. >>> >>> Eugen, do you see cases we can't cover with this property? >> >> Hi, >> >> For current requirements and driver support, this should be enough. >> >> I noticed one thing regarding SD-Cards, if I add property sd-uhs-sdr104 >> the class 10 uhs1 cards are detected as SDR104 . Without this property >> they are detected as DDR50. Any idea why the difference ? The controller >> does not claim to have SDR104 support ? We should add it ? > > With the mainline, our tree or both? In our tree, SDR104 is removed from > the capabilities. > > Ludovic > Hello Alexandre, Anything more needed regarding this patch ? Thanks, Eugen
