On 8/12/20 9:58 am, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > Adrian, > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:55:23AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> On 1/12/20 5:09 am, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> Adrian, >>> >>> Thank you for your review comments. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:18:55AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>>> On 25/11/20 9:41 am, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>>> Gentle ping; >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:26:59AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>>>> This is an interim snapshot of our next version, v4, for enabling >>>>>> UHS-II on MMC/SD. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is focused on 'sdhci' side to address Adrian's comments regarding >>>>>> "modularising" sdhci-uhs2.c. >>>>>> The whole aim of this version is to get early feedback from Adrian (and >>>>>> others) on this issue. Without any consensus about the code structure, >>>>> >>>>> Any comments so far? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Overall, I like this approach of separating UHS2 from legacy sdhci as much >>>> as possible. The only major change, is to drop support for legacy quirks >>>> and features that you do not need. The reason for that, is that there may >>>> be few drivers that end up with UHS-II support (opting instead for SD >>>> Express), so there is no point going to a lot of trouble to support things >>>> that never get used. >>>> >>>> From what I have seen that looks like it includes: >>>> - any quirks >>> >>> GLI driver (gl9755) needs >>> * SDHCI_QUIRK_NO_ENDATTR_IN_NOPDESC >>> * SDHCI_QUIRK2_BROKEN_DDR50 >>> but they are managed in sdhci code. >>> >>>> - SDHCI LED support >>>> - external DMA support >>> >>> Should we add 'depends on !SDHCI_UHS2' to MMC_SDHCI_EXTERNAL_DMA? >>> >>>> In this regard, the important thing is to have a comment somewhere that >>>> lists what is not supported. >>>> >>>> I have only looked at SDHCI patches so far, and only up to about patch 20, >>>> but maybe that gives you enough to go on for a while. >>> >>> Well, I have almost done. >>> Can I expect your comments on the patches #21-#27 as well soon? >> >> I have made some more comments and that is all for now, except for anything >> more you wish to discuss. > > Thank you. > I assume that you don't have any objection against adding extra hooks > to sdhci_ops in patch#23 and #25, do you? No objections at the moment. > > If so, since we don't have any critical issues to discuss, > I hope that my changes will be contained in the new version > where a major rework will be done on the core side by Ben. Ok
