Adrian, On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 01:00:35PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 16/09/20 11:05 am, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > Adrian, > > > > Your comments are scattered over various functions, and so > > I would like to address them in separate replies. > > > > First, I'd like to discuss sdhci_[add|remove]_host(). > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:08:32PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > >> On 10/07/20 2:10 pm, Ben Chuang wrote: > >>> From: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> In this commit, UHS-II related operations will be called via a function > >>> pointer array, sdhci_uhs2_ops, in order to make UHS-II support as > >>> a kernel module. > >>> This array will be initialized only if CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2 is enabled > >>> and when the UHS-II module is loaded. Otherwise, all the functions > >>> stay void. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ben Chuang <ben.chuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > > > > (snip) > > > >>> if (intmask & (SDHCI_INT_CARD_INSERT | SDHCI_INT_CARD_REMOVE)) { > >>> u32 present = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) & > >>> SDHCI_CARD_PRESENT; > >>> @@ -4717,6 +4812,14 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > >>> /* This may alter mmc->*_blk_* parameters */ > >>> sdhci_allocate_bounce_buffer(host); > >>> > >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && > >>> + host->version >= SDHCI_SPEC_400 && > >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.add_host) { > >>> + ret = sdhci_uhs2_ops.add_host(host, host->caps1); > >>> + if (ret) > >>> + goto unreg; > >>> + } > >>> + > >> > >> I think you should look at creating uhs2_add_host() instead > >> > >>> return 0; > >>> > >>> unreg: > >>> @@ -4738,6 +4841,8 @@ void sdhci_cleanup_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > >>> { > >>> struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc; > >>> > >>> + /* FIXME: Do we have to do some cleanup for UHS2 here? */ > >>> + > >>> if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) > >>> regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc); > >>> > >>> @@ -4766,6 +4871,14 @@ int __sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > >>> mmc->cqe_ops = NULL; > >>> } > >>> > >>> + if ((mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_UHS2) && !host->v4_mode) { > >>> + /* host doesn't want to enable UHS2 support */ > >>> + mmc->caps &= ~MMC_CAP_UHS2; > >>> + mmc->flags &= ~MMC_UHS2_SUPPORT; > >>> + > >>> + /* FIXME: Do we have to do some cleanup here? */ > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> host->complete_wq = alloc_workqueue("sdhci", flags, 0); > >>> if (!host->complete_wq) > >>> return -ENOMEM; > >>> @@ -4812,6 +4925,9 @@ int __sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > >>> unled: > >>> sdhci_led_unregister(host); > >>> unirq: > >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && > >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host) > >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host(host, 0); > >>> sdhci_do_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_ALL); > >>> sdhci_writel(host, 0, SDHCI_INT_ENABLE); > >>> sdhci_writel(host, 0, SDHCI_SIGNAL_ENABLE); > >>> @@ -4869,6 +4985,10 @@ void sdhci_remove_host(struct sdhci_host *host, int dead) > >>> > >>> sdhci_led_unregister(host); > >>> > >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && > >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host) > >>> + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host(host, dead); > >>> + > >> > >> I think you should look at creating uhs2_remove_host() instead > > > > You suggest that we will have separate sdhci_uhs2_[add|remove]_host(), > > but I don't think it's always convenient. > > > > UHS-II capable host will be set to call sdhci_uhs2_add_host() explicitly, > > but we can't do that in case of pci and pltfm based drivers as they utilize > > common helper functions, sdhci_pci_probe() and sdhci_pltfm_register(), > > respectively. > > sdhci-pci has an add_host op > > sdhci_pltfm_init can be used instead of sdhci_pltfm_register > > > > Therefore, we inevitably have to call sdhci_uhs2_add_host() there. > > > > If so, why should we distinguish sdhci_uhs2_add_host from sdhci_uhs_add_host? > > I don't see any good reason. > > Moreover, as a result, there exists a mixed usage of sdhci_ interfaces > > and sdhci_uhs2_ interfaces in sdhci-pci-core.c and sdhci-pltfm.c. > > > > It sounds odd to me. > > It is already done that way for cqhci. Okay, if it is your policy, I will follow that. Then, I'm going to add - remove_host field to struct sdhci_pci_fixes - a controller specific helper function to each driver (only pci-gli for now) even though it looks quite generic. sdhci_gli_[add|remove]_host(struct sdhci_pci_slot *slot) { return sdhci_uhs2_[add|remove]_host(slot->host); } # Or do you want to create a file like sdhci-uhs2-pci.c for those functions? -Takahiro Akashi > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > >> > >>> if (!dead) > >>> sdhci_do_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_ALL); > >>> > >>> > >> >