[PATCH v3 3/5] dt-bindings: sdhci-omap: Add bindings for the sdhci-omap controller

[Sebastian Reichel]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:50:22PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Uffe,
> 
> On Thursday 24 August 2017 04:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 23 August 2017 at 15:56, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon at ti.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Uffe,
> >>
> >> On Wednesday 23 August 2017 06:37 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>> On 23 August 2017 at 07:42, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon at ti.com> wrote:
> >>>> Add binding for the TI's sdhci-omap controller. This now includes only
> >>>> a subset of properties documented in ti-omap-hsmmc.txt but will eventually
> >>>> include all the properties.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon at ti.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Changes from v2:
> >>>> *) Fixed example to use the updated compatible
> >>>>
> >>>> Changes from v1:
> >>>> *) Create a new sdhci-omap.txt document for TI's sdhci-omap controller instead
> >>>>    of using the ti-omap-hsmmc.txt as suggested by Tony
> >>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-omap.txt         | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> >>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-omap.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-omap.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-omap.txt
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..139695ad2d58
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-omap.txt
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> >>>> +* TI OMAP SDHCI Controller
> >>>> +
> >>>> +Refer to mmc.txt for standard MMC bindings.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +Required properties:
> >>>> +- compatible: Should be "ti,dra7-sdhci" for DRA7 and DRA72 controllers
> >>>> +- ti,hwmods: Must be "mmc<n>", <n> is controller instance starting 1
> >>>> +
> >>>> +Optional properties:
> >>>> +- ti,dual-volt: boolean, supports dual voltage cards
> >>>> +- ti,non-removable: non-removable slot (like eMMC)
> >>>> +
> >>>> +Example:
> >>>> +       mmc1: mmc at 0x4809c000 {
> >>>> +               compatible = "ti,dra7-sdhci";
> >>>> +               reg = <0x4809c000 0x400>;
> >>>> +               ti,hwmods = "mmc1";
> >>>> +               ti,dual-volt;
> >>>> +               bus-width = <4>;
> >>>> +               vmmc-supply = <&vmmc>; /* phandle to regulator node */
> >>>> +               ti,non-removable;
> >>>> +       };
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.11.0
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am wondering a bit on the long term plan here.
> >>>
> >>> Ideally at some point in future, we would like to remove the old
> >>> omap_hsmmc driver, but from compatible string point of view, that
> >>> means we first needs to deprecate the old ones for a while. Right?
> >>
> >> right but sdhci-omap is still lacking features that was present in omap_hsmmc
> >> like context save/restore, SDIO support etc. I think we should deprecate
> >> omap_hsmmc compatible once we add all the features in sdhci-omap?
> >>>
> >>> That said, what is then the reason to why we should bring over the
> >>> existing omap_hsmmc bindings to the sdhci-omap bindings?
> >>
> >> This is mainly for old dt compatibility. Even after removing the omap_hsmmc
> >> driver, users should still be able to use newer kernel with their existing dtbs.
> > 
> > I guess we have two options.
> > 
> > 1) Allow us to invent and use new bindings - and a new compatible.
> > When everything is implemented in sdhci-omap, we can deprecate the old
> > omap_hsmmc driver and its corresponding compatible/bindings. At some
> > point later we can remove the legacy driver/bindings altogether - of
> > course that might take a while. This option allows us to re-think some
> > of the old bindings and really clean up some if its related code. For
> > example, I think "ti,dual-volt" is a bad binding. Instead it would be
> > better to use the existing mmc bindings about which speed mode the
> > controller/board supports (as the voltage level comes with it).
> > 
> > 2) Invent only a new compatible, but stick to use the old omap hsmmc
> > bindings and thus also deploy the similar code dealing with them. When
> > everything is implemented move the old omap_hsmmc compatibles into the
> > new sdhci-omap driver and them remove the old omap_hsmmc driver. At
> > that point we could also deprecate the old omap hsmmc compatibles, but
> > to me that is rather pointless.
> > 
> > The two options has different advantages, feel free to pick any of them!
> 
> Okay. I'll send a new version with option '1' (new compatible/new bindings).
> 
> And when we deprecate the omap_hsmmc driver (some time later), we'll add
> support for the legacy bindings in sdhci-omap driver (so that old dtbs continue
> to work). Tony, are you okay with this?

I think you should Cc Rob Herring and Mark Rutland (DT binding
maintainers). This sounds like "I use DT to describe driver
behaviour" instead of "I use DT to describe hardware".

I would expect the conversion to look like the one done for UART,
see CONFIG_SERIAL_OMAP vs CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_OMAP. Both use the
same compatible value and you can choose using kernel configuration.

-- Sebastian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20170829/1b8c8c06/attachment.sig>