Hi Ulf,
> Am 30.10.2019 um 16:51 schrieb Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> +
>> + np = of_get_compatible_child(np, "ti,wl1251");
>> + if (np) {
>> + /*
>> + * We have TI wl1251 attached to MMC3. Pass this information to
>> + * SDIO core because it can't be probed by normal methods.
>> + */
>> +
>> + dev_info(host->dev, "found wl1251\n");
>> + card->quirks |= MMC_QUIRK_NONSTD_SDIO;
>> + card->cccr.wide_bus = 1;
>> + card->cis.vendor = 0x104c;
>> + card->cis.device = 0x9066;
>> + card->cis.blksize = 512;
>> + card->cis.max_dtr = 24000000;
>> + card->ocr = 0x80;
>
> These things should really be figured out by the mmc core during SDIO
> card initialization itself, not via the host ops ->init_card()
> callback. That is just poor hack, which in the long run should go
> away.
Yes, I agree.
But I am just the poor guy who is trying to fix really broken code with
as low effort as possible.
I don't even have a significant clue what this code is exactly doing and what
the magic values mean. They were setup by pandora_wl1251_init_card() in the
same way so that I have just moved the code here and make it called in (almost)
the same situation.
> Moreover, I think we should add a subnode to the host node in the DT,
> to describe the embedded SDIO card, rather than parsing the subnode
> for the SDIO func - as that seems wrong to me.
You mean a second subnode?
The wl1251 is the child node of the mmc node and describes the SDIO card.
We just check if it is a wl1251 or e.g. wl1837 or something else or even
no child.
> To add a subnode for the SDIO card, we already have a binding that I
> think we should extend. Please have a look at
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-card.txt.
>
> If you want an example of how to implement this for your case, do a
> git grep "broken-hpi" in the driver/mmc/core/, I think it will tell
> you more of what I have in mind.
So while I agree that it should be improved in the long run, we should
IMHO fix the hack first (broken since v4.9!), even if it remains a hack
for now. Improving this part seems to be quite independent and focussed
on the mmc subsystem, while the other patches involve other subsystems.
Maybe should we make a REVISIT note in the code? Or add something to
the commit message about the idea how it should be done right?
>
>> + of_node_put(np);
>> + }
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> static void omap_hsmmc_enable_sdio_irq(struct mmc_host *mmc, int enable)
>> --
>> 2.19.1
>>
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
BR and thanks,
Nikolaus
