On 6/05/23 10:40, haibo.chen@xxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>
>
> The logic of the esdhc_pltfm_get_ro() is just the same with common
> code sdhci_check_ro(). So remove this redundant code, depends on
> mmc_of_parse() and sdhci_check_ro() to cover the write protect
> logic.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c | 47 +-----------------------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
> index c7db742f729c..54531aab70f0 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-esdhc-imx.c
> @@ -201,22 +201,8 @@
> /* ERR004536 is not applicable for the IP */
> #define ESDHC_FLAG_SKIP_ERR004536 BIT(17)
>
> -enum wp_types {
> - ESDHC_WP_NONE, /* no WP, neither controller nor gpio */
> - ESDHC_WP_CONTROLLER, /* mmc controller internal WP */
> - ESDHC_WP_GPIO, /* external gpio pin for WP */
> -};
> -
> -/*
> - * struct esdhc_platform_data - platform data for esdhc on i.MX
> - *
> - * ESDHC_WP(CD)_CONTROLLER type is not available on i.MX25/35.
> - *
> - * @wp_type: type of write_protect method (see wp_types enum above)
> - */
> -
> +/* struct esdhc_platform_data - platform data for esdhc on i.MX */
> struct esdhc_platform_data {
> - enum wp_types wp_type;
> int max_bus_width;
> unsigned int delay_line;
> unsigned int tuning_step; /* The delay cell steps in tuning procedure */
> @@ -994,25 +980,6 @@ static inline void esdhc_pltfm_set_clock(struct sdhci_host *host,
>
> }
>
> -static unsigned int esdhc_pltfm_get_ro(struct sdhci_host *host)
> -{
> - struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
> - struct pltfm_imx_data *imx_data = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host);
> - struct esdhc_platform_data *boarddata = &imx_data->boarddata;
> -
> - switch (boarddata->wp_type) {
> - case ESDHC_WP_GPIO:
> - return mmc_gpio_get_ro(host->mmc);
> - case ESDHC_WP_CONTROLLER:
> - return !(readl(host->ioaddr + SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) &
> - SDHCI_WRITE_PROTECT);
> - case ESDHC_WP_NONE:
> - break;
> - }
> -
> - return -ENOSYS;
> -}
> -
> static void esdhc_pltfm_set_bus_width(struct sdhci_host *host, int width)
> {
> u32 ctrl;
> @@ -1380,7 +1347,6 @@ static struct sdhci_ops sdhci_esdhc_ops = {
> .get_max_clock = esdhc_pltfm_get_max_clock,
> .get_min_clock = esdhc_pltfm_get_min_clock,
> .get_max_timeout_count = esdhc_get_max_timeout_count,
> - .get_ro = esdhc_pltfm_get_ro,
> .set_timeout = esdhc_set_timeout,
> .set_bus_width = esdhc_pltfm_set_bus_width,
> .set_uhs_signaling = esdhc_set_uhs_signaling,
> @@ -1588,17 +1554,6 @@ sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
> struct esdhc_platform_data *boarddata = &imx_data->boarddata;
> int ret;
>
> - if (of_property_read_bool(np, "fsl,wp-controller"))
> - boarddata->wp_type = ESDHC_WP_CONTROLLER;
esdhc_pltfm_get_ro() differs from sdhci_check_ro() by defaulting
to -ENOSYS if there is neither "fsl,wp-controller" nor "wp-gpios",
which would result in write-protect off (not supported, e.g. microsd).
So more explanation is needed for why removing "fsl,wp-controller"
will give the same result.
> -
> - /*
> - * If we have this property, then activate WP check.
> - * Retrieveing and requesting the actual WP GPIO will happen
> - * in the call to mmc_of_parse().
> - */
> - if (of_property_read_bool(np, "wp-gpios"))
> - boarddata->wp_type = ESDHC_WP_GPIO;
> -
> of_property_read_u32(np, "fsl,tuning-step", &boarddata->tuning_step);
> of_property_read_u32(np, "fsl,tuning-start-tap",
> &boarddata->tuning_start_tap);
