On 9/2/23 18:43, Linus Walleij wrote:
Hi Yann/Christophe,
just a quick note:
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:08 PM Yann Gautier <yann.gautier@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+static void sdmmc_enable_sdio_irq(struct mmci_host *host, int enable)
+{
+ void __iomem *base = host->base;
+ u32 mask = readl_relaxed(base + MMCIMASK0);
+
+ if (enable)
+ writel_relaxed(mask | MCI_ST_SDIOITMASK, base + MMCIMASK0);
+ else
+ writel_relaxed(mask & ~MCI_ST_SDIOITMASK, base + MMCIMASK0);
+}
+
+static void sdmmc_sdio_irq(struct mmci_host *host, u32 status)
+{
+ if (status & MCI_ST_SDIOIT) {
+ sdmmc_enable_sdio_irq(host, 0);
+ sdio_signal_irq(host->mmc);
+ }
+}
You need to move these to mmci and rename them since Ux500 will use
the same callbacks.
Hi Linus,
Yes, that's what I was planning to do.
static struct mmci_host_ops sdmmc_variant_ops = {
.validate_data = sdmmc_idma_validate_data,
(...)
+ .enable_sdio_irq = sdmmc_enable_sdio_irq,
+ .sdio_irq = sdmmc_sdio_irq,
};
What about dropping the per-variant callbacks and just inline
this into mmci_enable_sdio_irq()/mmci_ack_sdio_irq() since
so many variants have the same scheme? I haven't looked
at the Qualcomm variant though, maybe it is completely
different...
I'm not sure about this. Keeping the ops will make it easier for other
variants to bring their own code if their scheme is different.
Best regards,
Yann
Yours,
Linus Walleij
