lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci-pci: Try "cd" for card-detect lookup before using NULL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:34:55PM -0700, Rajat Jain wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:13 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 12:53 AM Rajat Jain <rajatja@google.com> wrote:

> > > across other users of this API (other MMC host controller drivers).
> >
> > > if (slot->cd_idx >= 0) {
> > > - ret = mmc_gpiod_request_cd(host->mmc, NULL, slot->cd_idx,
> > > + ret = mmc_gpiod_request_cd(host->mmc, "cd", slot->cd_idx,
> > > slot->cd_override_level, 0, NULL);
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > + if (ret && ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > + ret = mmc_gpiod_request_cd(host->mmc, NULL,
> > > + slot->cd_idx,
> > > + slot->cd_override_level,
> > > + 0, NULL);
> >
> > And no. Instead of this part you need to provide an ACPI GPIO mapping table.
>
> Sure, I am willing to do so, and I tried earlier too. However, certain
> doubts arose in my mind when I tried that and I posted my questions
> earlier (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/28/507) but couldn't elicit any
> response. Unfortunately I still do not have answers. My primary
> questions are:
>
> 1) - It seems that 1 SDHCI device may support multiple slots (looking
> at the code). It is not clear to me if they could share card detect
> interrupts, or should have separate ones?

This is more likely question to HW engineers of your platform with a caveat
that there should be a way to distinguish exact slot in which card is being
inserted.

> Also, the driver may not
> really know?

I think in such case the bug in HW design and / or driver.

> So should I add 1 or two pins using the
> devm_acpi_dev_add_driver_gpios().

This depends on the above, e.g. HW design, ACPI tables.

> Is some one familiar with SDHC
> driver can answer these questions, it shall be great.

Actually above questions better to ask in linux-mmc mailing list, which by the
fact is in Cc list already. So, wait for someone to clarify.


> 2) I'm not really sure what should I set "active_low" to? Isn't this
> something that should be specified by platform / ACPI too, and driver
> should just be able to say say choose whatever the ACPI says?
>
> struct acpi_gpio_params {
> unsigned int crs_entry_index;
> unsigned int line_index;
> bool active_low;
> };


ACPI specification misses this property, that's why we have it in the
structure. In your case it should be provided by _DSD and thus be consistent
with the hardcoded values.

> Since I do not understand the above two issues, and thus I chose the
> safest path and not disturb the current code so as not to cause any
> regressions.

As far as I can see in the above it is disturbing the current code more than
needed.

>
> Please let me know, and I'm happy to re-spin my patch.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-24 12:03    [W:0.116 / U:8.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site