[PATCH 04/20] mmc: mmci: Move signal directions bits into DT include file

[Ulf Hansson]

On 28 March 2014 22:03, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 25 March 2014 22:22, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> These bits is currently used from platform data, but will be needed
>>>> from DT as well, so let's make them available.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>
>>> (...)
>>>> +#define MCI_ST_DATA31DIREN     (1 << 5)
>>>> +#define MCI_ST_FBCLKEN         (1 << 7)
>>>> +#define MCI_ST_DATA74DIREN     (1 << 8)
>>>
>>> Isn't MCI_ST_FBCLKEN = feedback clock enable and nothing
>>> to do with directions really?
>>
>> You do have a point here, but then we are about to go into the details. :-)
>>
>> What MCI_ST_FBCLKEN means, is that the internal logic in the primecell
>> can decide whether to use the signal from clockout pin or the
>> feebackclock pin, when its latching incoming signals on the data bus.
>>
>> That said, we for sure need a dt binding for bit as well, since this
>> is not possible to figure out how pins are routed in runtime.
>>
>> Also, I do believe it is very closely related to the other sigdir
>> pins, since it's all about how pins is being routed, even if it's as
>> you say - in this case a matter of signal directions.
>>
>> So, I guess we have two options here; Either move the MCI_ST_FBCLKEN
>> out of the signal-direction binding and invent a separate binding for
>> it, or just keep them as is.
>
> If they are very closely related I guess that will become very
> clear when you document it in the requested explicit bindings,
> so no strong opinion here. I'd probably ACK either version.
>
>>> Maybe we should just have single strings for these
>>> things in the binding instead, like:
>>>
>>> @@ -118,6 +119,10 @@
>>>                         bus-width = <4>;
>>>                         mmc-cap-sd-highspeed;
>>>                         mmc-cap-mmc-highspeed;
>>> +                       st,signal-direction-data2;
>>> +                       st,signal-direction-cmd;
>>> +                       st,signal-direction-data0;
>>> +                       st,feedback-clock-enable;
>>>                         vmmc-supply = <&ab8500_ldo_aux3_reg>;
>>>                         vqmmc-supply = <&vmmci>;
>>>                         pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>>
>> I guess this is an option. To me it just seems a bit silly to have one
>> separate binding for each single bit, but maybe it becomes clearer?
>
> The idea with device trees is to be very human-readable, so I guess
> if you have preprocessor macro things |:ing the arguments together
> to a singular 32bit value it serves the same purpose. Arguably this
> version is even easier for a human to read though.
>
> What we should avoid is using magic number assignments to
> save space (e.g. have magic numbers in the tree rather than
> readable strings) so I lean toward this, but it's admittedly in a
> grey area, so again no strong opinion.

Thanks for your advise. I seems like a good idea to move to use
readable strings instead.

In that way, we also get the clean cut between signal directions and
the feedback clock pin.

Kind regards
Ulf Hansson

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij