On 1/13/21 12:38 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
[...]
static int mmci_of_parse(struct device_node *np, struct mmc_host *mmc)
{
struct mmci_host *host = mmc_priv(mmc);
@@ -1913,7 +1973,7 @@ static int mmci_of_parse(struct device_node *np, struct mmc_host *mmc)
if (of_get_property(np, "st,neg-edge", NULL))
host->clk_reg_add |= MCI_STM32_CLK_NEGEDGE;
if (of_get_property(np, "st,use-ckin", NULL))
- host->clk_reg_add |= MCI_STM32_CLK_SELCKIN;
+ mmci_probe_level_translator(mmc);
I think you can make this change bit less invasive. Rather than having
to shuffle code around in ->probe(), I suggest you call
mmci_probe_level_translator() outside and after mmci_of_parse() has
been called.
In this way, you can also provide mmci_probe_level_translator() with a
struct mmci_host *, rather than having to pick it up from
mmc_priv(mmc), if you see what I mean.
Of course, this also means in mmci_probe_level_translator() you will
have to check if MCI_STM32_CLK_SELCKIN has been set, and if not then
do an early return.
Testing the translator presence when checking whether its enabled in DT
seems like the right place, but that's really just an implementation detail.
I am more interested in knowing whether adding
mmci_probe_level_translator() is even acceptable in the first place. Is it ?
Honestly, I don't know.
I think I need to defer that question to Linus Walleij. And of course,
it would be nice to get the opinion from Ludovic as well.
Good, that's what I was hoping for too.
