[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH V1] dt-bindings: mmc: sdhci-msm: Add CQE reg map

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 7:29 AM Veerabhadrarao Badiganti
<> wrote:
> CQE feature has been enabled on sdhci-msm. Add CQE reg map
> that needs to be supplied for supporting CQE feature.
> Change-Id: I788c4bd5b7cbca16bc1030a410cc5550ed7204e1
> Signed-off-by: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt
> index 7ee639b..eaa0998 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt
> @@ -27,6 +27,11 @@ Required properties:
> - reg: Base address and length of the register in the following order:
> - Host controller register map (required)
> - SD Core register map (required for msm-v4 and below)
> + - CQE register map (Optional, needed only for eMMC and msm-v4.2 above)

I did a quick search and it appears that SD cards implementing 6.0 of
the spec can also use CQE. Is that correct? If so, maybe remove the
part about "eMMC"?

Maybe also change "needed" to "useful" to make it clear that this
entry isn't actually required for all msm-v4.2 controllers?

> +- reg-names: When CQE register map is supplied, below reg-names are required
> + - "hc_mem" for Host controller register map
> + - "core_mem" for SD cpre regoster map


> + - "cqhci_mem" for CQE register map

I'm at least slightly confused. You say that reg-names are there only
if CQE register map is supplied. ...and that requires 4.2 and above.
...but "core_mem" is only there on 4.0 and below. So there should
never be a "core_mem" entry?

Trying to specify that sanely in free-form text seems like it's gonna
be hard and not worth it. You should probably transition to yaml

I will also note that Rob isn't a huge fan of "reg-names". In a
different conversation I think you mentioned you had a reason for
having it. I guess just be prepared to defend yourself against Rob if
you feel strongly about keeping reg-names.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-11 17:43    [W:0.174 / U:12.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site