Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:45:55 +0200 | From | Georgi Djakov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] mmc: sdhci-msm: Qualcomm SDHCI binding documentation |
| |
On 03/05/2014 08:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Georgi Djakov <gdjakov@mm-sol.com> wrote: [..] >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible: Should contain "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4". >> +- reg: Base address and length of the register set listed in reg-names. >> +- reg-names: Should contain the following: >> + "hc_mem" - Host controller register map >> + "core_mem" - SD Core register map > > reg-names should not be required and the order specified by the binding. >
Ok, Rob! Thanks!
>> +- interrupts: Should contain an interrupt-specifiers for the interrupts listed in interrupt-names. >> +- interrupt-names: Should contain the following: >> + "hc_irq" - Host controller interrupt >> + "pwr_irq" - PMIC interrupt > > Same for interrupt-names. >
Ok.
>> +- vdd-supply: Phandle to the regulator for the vdd (core voltage) supply. >> +- vdd-io-supply: Phandle to the regulator for the vdd-io (i/o voltage) supply. >> +- pinctrl-names: Should contain only one value - "default". >> +- pinctrl-0: Should specify pin control groups used for this controller. >> +- clocks: A list of phandle + clock-specifier pairs for the clocks listed in clock-names. >> +- clock-names: Should contain the following: >> + "iface" - Main peripheral bus clock (PCLK/HCLK - AHB Bus clock) (required) >> + "core" - SDC MMC clock (MCLK) (required) >> + "bus" - SDCC bus voter clock (optional) >> + >> +Example: >> + >> + sdhc_1: sdhci@f9824900 { >> + compatible = "qcom,sdhci-msm-v4"; >> + reg = <0xf9824900 0x11c>, <0xf9824000 0x800>; > > Are there cases where these are really in a different 4KB range? If > not, this should just be 1 range. >
Thanks for your suggestion. This sounds reasonable, but in this case, I think that it might be better leaving the memory regions separated as it will help avoiding code duplication. I am using the generic sdhci_pltfm_init(), which assumes that the first resource is the HC iomem and configures the host. If I merge them, the HC address will be offset and this might require duplicating some of the init code. Is it acceptable to leave it this way?
BR, Georgi
| |