Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] mmc: shdci-bcm2835: add verify for 32-bit back-to-back workaround | From | Stefan Wahren <> | Date | Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:13:01 +0100 |
| |
Hi Scott,
Am 22.12.2015 um 20:23 schrieb Scott Branden: > Hi Stefan, > > On 15-12-22 07:55 AM, Stefan Wahren wrote: >> Hi Scott, >> >> Am 07.11.2014 um 19:31 schrieb Scott Branden: >>> On 14-11-05 09:01 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 11/05/2014 12:00 AM, Scott Branden wrote: >>>>> On 14-11-04 08:59 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>> On 10/30/2014 12:36 AM, Scott Branden wrote: >>>>>>> Add a verify option to driver to print out an error message if a >>>>>>> potential back to back write could cause a clock domain issue. >>>>>> >>>>>>> index f8c450a..11af27f 100644 >>>>>> >>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_BCM2835_VERIFY_WORKAROUND >>>>>>> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); >>>>>>> + struct bcm2835_sdhci_host *bcm2835_host = pltfm_host->priv; >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (bcm2835_host->previous_reg == reg) { >>>>>>> + if ((reg != SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL) >>>>>>> + && (reg != SDHCI_CLOCK_CONTROL)) { >>>>>> >>>>>> The comment in patch 3 says the problem doesn't apply to the data >>>>>> register. Why does this check for these two registers rather than >>>>>> data? >>>>> This Verify workaround patch still a work in progress. I'm still >>>>> getting more info from the silicon designers on the back-to-back >>>>> register writes that are affect. The spew of 0x20 or 0x28 or 0x2c >>>>> register writes are all ok locations that don't need to be worked >>>>> around. This patch needs to be corrected with the proper register >>>>> rules >>>>> still. >>> Thanks for testing. Yes, I have work to do on the verify patch above >>> still. >> >> do you still have plans to submit a V3 of this patch series? > No, I do not have plans to submit a V3 of this patch series. > > I submitted this patch as RPI has a similar controller to the SoCs I am > familiar with as well as needing similar work arounds You can take > over the patchset. Or, try and get the sdhci-iproc.c driver going on > RPI. The sdhci-iproc is the production driver we use on a variety of > SoCs and support and test this driver.
after applying the patch series both drivers are very similiar so i prefer the latter. I will give it a try. Thanks for the hint about sdhci-iproc.
Regards Stefan
| |