[PATCH 1/2] mmc: dw_mmc: exynos: Add the exynos3250 compatible
k.kozlowski at samsung.com
Wed Oct 21 22:57:27 PDT 2015
On 22.10.2015 14:14, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> On 10/22/2015 12:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22.10.2015 11:54, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>> Hi, Krzysztof.
>>> On 10/22/2015 09:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 21.10.2015 15:39, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>>>> To check more exactly, add the exynos3250 compatible.
>>>>> Not use exynos5250 compatibility.
>>>> I can't find any difference between old and new compatible. Maybe I am
>>>> missing something? Maybe there is a difference for these devices?
>>> Sorry, I needs to add more explanation about changing compatible.
>>> Exynos3250 has more registers than exynos5250 in dwmmc IP.
>>> Now, we used dwmmc controller with exynos5250 compatible.
>>> Then some codes can't run in dw-mmc.c, if SoC is exynos3250.
>>> For example, there is the checking point in dw_mci_exynos_config_hs400().
>>> static void dw_mci_exynos_config_hs400(struct dw_mci *host, u32 timing)
>>> struct dw_mci_exynos_priv_data *priv = host->priv;
>>> u32 dqs, strobe;
>>> * Not supported to configure register
>>> * related to HS400
>>> if (priv->ctrl_type < DW_MCI_TYPE_EXYNOS5420)
>>> dqs = priv->saved_dqs_en;
>>> strobe = priv->saved_strobe_ctrl;
>>> It can't use this feature with exynos5250 compatible.
>> Ahh, I see it now. I missed that context and commit message wasn't
>> explaining this real reason. This real reason - supporting HS400 or
>> other features not present on Exynos5250 - was not mentioned.
> Right, it's not enough to explain why needs this patch.
>> The new compatible make sense now... but I am wondering if instead just
>> "samsung,exynos5420-dw-mshc" should be used? I think it would give the
>> same result as your change and if new compatible is not required then it
>> will be better not to add it.
> I need to check whether it can be used with "samsung,exynos5420-dw-mshc".
> If you don't want to add new compatible, then i will check Exynos5420 TRM.
> Maybe, i think it can be used with it.
> Is it good that use more exact compatible?
Actually one thing is the real compatibility of devices and second is
the source code.
Looking at the source code, the behaviour for new exynos3250 compatible
and "samsung,exynos5420-dw-mshc" would be the same, right? This would be
a indication for reusing existing compatible. No need to create new one.
However maybe the devices aren't really compatible and using the same
compatible would prevent adding new features to Exynos5420?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel