Hi Shimoda-san,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:53 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
<yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 6:46 PM
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:48 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
> > <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > After the commit 7320915c8861 ("mmc: Set PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS
> > > for drivers that existed in v4.14"), the order of /dev/mmcblkN
> > > was not fixed in some SoCs which have multiple sdhi controllers.
> > > So, we were hard to use an sdhi device as rootfs by using
> > > the kernel parameter like "root=/dev/mmcblkNpM".
> > >
> > > According to the discussion on a mainling list [1], we can add
> > > mmc aliases to fix the issue. So, add such aliases into R-Car Gen3
> > > and RZ/G2 dtsi files. Note that, if an SoC like r8a77980 has one
> > > sdhi controller only, the alias is not defined.
> > >
> > > [1]
> <snip>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Changes from v1:
> > > - Revise the commit description.
> > > - Remove some alias which SoC has one sdhi controller only.
> > >
> <snip>
> >
> > Thanks for the update!
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > i.e. I plan to queue this in renesas-devel for v5.13.
> > Unless you want to upstream this as a fix for v5.11, in which case we
> > have to hurry. Note that v5.10 already has the issue, too.
>
> Thank you for this comment. For v5.13 is enough to me. However,
OK.
> if possible, I'd like to apply this patch v5.10.xx too.
> So, should/may I add the following Fixes tag for it?
>
> Fixes: 7320915c8861 ("mmc: Set PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS for drivers that existed in v4.14")
I can add the tag while applying.
> > BTW, shouldn't we add the aliases on 32-bit arm, too?
>
> I think so. I'll prepare such a patch too.
TIA!
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a774c0.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a774c0.dtsi
> > > @@ -14,6 +14,12 @@
> > > #address-cells = <2>;
> > > #size-cells = <2>;
> > >
> > > + aliases {
> > > + mmc0 = &sdhi0;
> > > + mmc1 = &sdhi1;
> > > + mmc3 = &sdhi3;
> > > + };
> >
> > BTW, this is one of the other issues with aliases: where is mmc2?
> > Yes, I know why it's done this way ;-)
>
> Ah, I intended to assign the aliases 1:1 between "mmcN" and "sdhiN".
> But, should we use "mmc2 = &sdhi3;" instead on r8a774c0 and r8a77990?
I'm fine with the numbering you used, as the aliases match the existing
labels.
However, on R-Car Gen2 we did use contiguous numbering of the labels,
as early revisions of the datasheet used contiguous numbering for the
interfaces, while later revisions changed this.
I think the sensible thing to do is to make the aliases match the existing
labels, too.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
