On 20 March 2018 at 10:55, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>>> If I get it right, you mean something like this:
>>>>
>>>> mmc3: mmc@1c12000 {
>>>> ...
>>>> broken-sg-support;
>>>> sd-head-align = 4;
>>>> sd-sgentry-align = 512;
>>>>
>>>> brcmf: wifi@1 {
>>>> ...
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Where dt: bindings documentation for these entries should reside?
>>>> In generic MMC bindings? Well, this is the very special case and
>>>> mmc-linux maintainer will unlikely to accept these changes.
>>>> Also, extra kernel code modification might be required. It could make
>>>> quite trivial change much more complex.
>>>
>>> If the MMC maintainers are not copied on this patch series, it will
>>> likely be hard for them to identify this patch series and chime in...
>>
>> The main question is whether this is indeed a "very special case" as
>> Alexey claims it to be or that it is likely to be applicable to other
>> device and host combinations as you are suggesting.
>>
>> If these properties are imposed by the host or host controller it
>> would make sense to have these in the mmc bindings.
>
> BTW, last year we were discussing something similar (I mean related to
> alignment requirements) with ath10k SDIO patches and at the time the
> patch submitter was proposing to have a bounce buffer in ath10k to
> workaround that. I don't remember the details anymore, they are on the
> ath10k mailing list archive if anyone is curious to know, but I would
> not be surprised if they are similar as here. So there might be a need
> to solve this in a generic way (but not sure of course as I haven't
> checked the details).
I re-call something about these as well, here are the patches. Perhaps
I should pick some of them up...
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10123137/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10123139/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10123141/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10123143/
Kind regards
Uffe
