Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] phy: intel-lgm-emmc: Add support for eMMC PHY | From | "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" <> | Date | Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:10:15 +0800 |
| |
On 20/8/2019 12:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:44:16AM +0800, Ramuthevar,Vadivel MuruganX wrote: >> From: Ramuthevar Vadivel Murugan <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> >> >> Adds support for eMMC PHY on Intel's Lightning Mountain SoC. > Adds -> Add. Thanks Andy, agreed. >> +/* eMMC phy register definitions */ >> +#define EMMC_PHYCTRL0_REG 0xa8 >> +#define DR_TY_MASK GENMASK(30, 28) >> +#define DR_TY_50OHM(x) ((~(x) << 28) & DR_TY_MASK) >> +#define OTAPDLYENA BIT(14) >> +#define OTAPDLYSEL_MASK GENMASK(13, 10) >> +#define OTAPDLYSEL_SHIFT(x) (((x) << 10) & OTAPDLYSEL_MASK) >> + >> +#define EMMC_PHYCTRL1_REG 0xac >> +#define PDB_MASK 1 > BIT(0) agreed. >> +#define ENDLL_MASK BIT(7) >> +#define ENDLL_VAL BIT(7) >> + >> +#define EMMC_PHYCTRL2_REG 0xb0 >> +#define FRQSEL_25M 0 >> +#define FRQSEL_150M 3 >> +#define FRQSEL_MASK GENMASK(24, 22) >> +#define FRQSEL_SHIFT(x) ((x) << 22) >> + >> +#define EMMC_PHYSTAT_REG 0xbc >> +#define CALDONE_MASK 1 >> +#define DLLRDY_MASK 1 >> +#define IS_CALDONE(x) ((((x) >> 9) & CALDONE_MASK) == 1) >> +#define IS_DLLRDY(x) ((((x) >> 8) & DLLRDY_MASK) == 1) > These are inconsistent with above: > > #define CALDONE_MASK BIT(9) > ... > #define IS_CALDONE ((x) & CALDONE_MASK) > > Note redundant == part. Agreed, will update. >> +static int intel_emmc_phy_power(struct phy *phy, bool on_off) >> +{ >> + * - PHY driver to probe >> + * - SDHCI driver to start probe >> + * - SDHCI driver to register it's clock >> + * - SDHCI driver to get the PHY >> + * - SDHCI driver to init the PHY >> + * > >> + * The clock is optional, so upon any error we just set to NULL. > No, the clock framework will do it for you. > >> + * >> + * NOTE: we don't do anything special for EPROBE_DEFER here. Given the >> + * above expected use case, EPROBE_DEFER isn't sensible to expect, so >> + * it's just like any other error. > This comment is not correct... Agreed, re-structure the sentence. >> + */ >> + priv->emmcclk = clk_get_optional(&phy->dev, "emmcclk"); >> + if (IS_ERR(priv->emmcclk)) { >> + dev_warn(&phy->dev, "ERROR: getting emmcclk\n"); > ...because here you have to return an error... Agreed. >> + priv->emmcclk = NULL; > ...and here is redundant assignment. > Agreed. >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> +} > When you send out patches, check that you do this for latest version you got reviewed internally. Thank you so much for the review comments, sure I will recheck and recollect your review comments of different patches for the same cases .
With Best Regards vadivel
| |