[PATCH] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Add support for Erratum 2.1.1.128 in device tree boot

[Nishanth Menon]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi at ti.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:38:00AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> On 01/20/2014 05:39 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:29:02PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>> >> When device is booted using devicetree, platforms impacted by
>> >> Erratum 2.1.1.128 is not detected easily in the mmc driver. This erratum
>> >> indicates that the module cannot do multi-block transfers.
>> >>
>> >> Handle this by providing a boolean flag to indicate to driver that it is
>> >> working on a hardware with mentioned limitation.
>> >
>> > sure there's no way of reading the revision register to figure this one
>> > out without having to add a new DT attribute ?
>> >
>> I did a quick patch to read the Module revision register:
>> http://slexy.org/view/s21TKvlWlR
>>
>> sdp2430: Revision: 1.2, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt
>>
>> OMAP3430-ldp: (ES2.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt
>> SDP3430:(ES3.0) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt
>> AM3517-evm: (ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt
>> AM3517-crane:(ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt
>>
>> AM37x-evm: (ES1.2) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt
>> OMAP3630-beag-xm (ES1.2): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt
>>
>> am335x-evm:(ES1.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt
>> am335x-sk: (ES2.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt
>> am335x-beaglebone-black:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal
>> interrupt
>>
>> sdp4430.txt: (ES2.2): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt
>>
>> OMAP4460-panda-es (ES1.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt
>>
>> OMAP5uevm:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt
>> dra7-evm (es1.1): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt
>>
>>
>> OMAP3430-ldp seems to be the only one impacted with module revision
>> 2.6 -> so using revision information is not really helpful here. Hence
>> the usage of a flag in dt attribute to indicate hardware impacted by
>> erratum.
>
> alright, that's too bad. Seems like revision in this module isn't very
> useful :-(

Can I take that as an acked-by?

Regards,
Nishanth Menon