Hi Adrian,
On 26/10/23 12:33, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 26/10/23 10:00, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 26/10/23 09:14, Nitin Yadav wrote:
>>> ti,otap-del-sel-legacy/ti,itap-del-sel-legacy passed from DT
>>> are currently ignored for all SD/MMC and eMMC modes. Fix this
>>> by making start loop index to MMC_TIMING_LEGACY.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 8ee5fc0e0b3be ("mmc: sdhci_am654: Update OTAPDLY writes")
>>>
>>
>> There isn't usually a blank line here
>>
>> Perhaps a Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx tag?
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nitin Yadav <n-yadav@xxxxxx>
>>
>> Nevertheless:
>>
>> Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Sorry, sent that prematurely - see comment below
>
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c
>>> index 544aaaf5cb0f..aae9d255c6a1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci_am654.c
>>> @@ -606,7 +606,7 @@ static int sdhci_am654_get_otap_delay(struct sdhci_host *host,
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>
> Isn't the MMC_TIMING_LEGACY information read at the top of
> sdhci_am654_get_otap_delay()?
Loop also take care of ITAP. Looks like at some point single property
ti,otap-del-sel was used for all modes and then we moved to one property
per mode:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200108150920.14547-3-faiz_abbas@xxxxxx
(since v5.7)
>
>>> - for (i = MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS; i <= MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400; i++) {
>>> + for (i = MMC_TIMING_LEGACY; i <= MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400; i++) {
>>>
>>> ret = device_property_read_u32(dev, td[i].otap_binding,
>>> &sdhci_am654->otap_del_sel[i]);
>>
>
--
Regards,
Nitin
