Hi Yann, On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:49:09PM +0100, Yann Sionneau wrote: > Hello, > > I've written a driver for snps,dw-mshc, which is compatible with SDHC spec. Are you sure? "snps,dw-mshc" is not compatible to SDHCI and has a separate driver in Linux. We also have this driver in barebox, not with the "snps,dw-mshc" compatible, but with "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc". The register layout looks quite different from SDHCI. > > Basically I've just copy pasted the dove-sdhci.c one and modified a few > lines to add: > > * support for host_v4 mode > > * 64 bit addressing > > * 64-bit SDMA > > * PIO mode > > * Support for 10-bit clock divider (max divider of 2046 instead of 256) > > Chosing between SDMA and PIO is done with Kconfig defines at compile time. > It's either one or the other. > > Since snps,dw-mshc and dove-sdhci share the same code, because both respect > SDHC spec I would propose to rename dove-sdhci.c into sdhci.c and remove all > dove mentions inside. > > Then write a dove-sdhci.c which registers via the sdhci generic layer and > same thing for dw-mshc. > > This allows lot of code sharing between SDHC compatible devices and also > eases a lot the writing of new drivers. > > Would that be OK? We have several other SDHCI like drivers in barebox: bcm2835, tegra, imx-esdhc. They are all slightly different and the Linux SDHCI driver is a horrible thing. Instead of trying to write one driver for all of these I'd rather suggest we keep our separate drivers and that we create a common SHDCI file in which we add some library functions which we can use from the more specific drivers. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | 28Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
