Hello Detlev, On 2024-08-23 15:34, Detlev Casanova wrote:
On Friday, 23 August 2024 01:41:44 EDT Dragan Simic wrote:Hello Detlev, Please see a comment below. On 2024-08-22 23:15, Detlev Casanova wrote: > From: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Some Rockchip devices put the phase settings into the dw_mmc > controller. > > When the feature is present, the ciu-drive and ciu-sample clocks are > not used and the phase configuration is done directly through the mmc > controller. > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c | 171 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 160 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c > b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c > index b07190ba4b7a..2748f9bf2691 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-rockchip.c > @@ -15,7 +15,17 @@ > > #include "dw_mmc.h" > #include "dw_mmc-pltfm.h" > > -#define RK3288_CLKGEN_DIV 2 > +#define RK3288_CLKGEN_DIV 2 > +#define SDMMC_TIMING_CON0 0x130 > +#define SDMMC_TIMING_CON1 0x134 > +#define ROCKCHIP_MMC_DELAY_SEL BIT(10) > +#define ROCKCHIP_MMC_DEGREE_MASK 0x3 > +#define ROCKCHIP_MMC_DEGREE_OFFSET 1 > +#define ROCKCHIP_MMC_DELAYNUM_OFFSET 2 > +#define ROCKCHIP_MMC_DELAYNUM_MASK (0xff << > ROCKCHIP_MMC_DELAYNUM_OFFSET) > +#define ROCKCHIP_MMC_DELAY_ELEMENT_PSEC 60 > +#define HIWORD_UPDATE(val, mask, shift) \ > + ((val) << (shift) | (mask) << ((shift) + 16)) > > static const unsigned int freqs[] = { 100000, 200000, 300000, 400000 > > }; > > @@ -24,8 +34,143 @@ struct dw_mci_rockchip_priv_data { > > struct clk *sample_clk; > int default_sample_phase; > int num_phases; > > + int internal_phase; > > }; It might be good to declare internal_phase as "unsigned int internal_phase:1", i.e. as a bit field, which isn't going to save some memory in this particular case, but it would show additional attention to detail.In that case, I would go with a bool instead of int, that makes things even clearer.
My suggestion to use "unsigned int internal_phase:1" actually takes inspiration from the ASoC code, in which such bit fields are used quite a lot, even when using them actually doesn't save space. In this particular case, using plain bool would make sense, but I still think that using an "unsigned int internal_phase:1" bit field would fit better, because it would show the intention to possibly save a bit of RAM at some point. OTOH, I don't think that using bool with such bit fields would actually work cleanly, because bool actually resolves to int that's a signed type.
