lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Assign a fixed index to mmc devices on rk3399-roc-pc boards.
    Hi,

    On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:51 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
    >
    > Hi Markus,
    >
    > Am Mittwoch, 4. November 2020, 10:49:45 CET schrieb Markus Reichl:
    > > Recently introduced async probe on mmc devices can shuffle block IDs.
    > > Pin them to fixed values to ease booting in evironments where UUIDs
    > > are not practical. Use newly introduced aliases for mmcblk devices from [1].
    > >
    > > [1]
    > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11747669/
    > >
    > > Signed-off-by: Markus Reichl <m.reichl@fivetechno.de>
    > > ---
    > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi | 5 +++++
    > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
    > >
    > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi
    > > index e7a459fa4322..bc9482b59428 100644
    > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi
    > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc.dtsi
    > > @@ -13,6 +13,11 @@ / {
    > > model = "Firefly ROC-RK3399-PC Board";
    > > compatible = "firefly,roc-rk3399-pc", "rockchip,rk3399";
    > >
    > > + aliases {
    > > + mmc0 = &sdmmc;
    > > + mmc1 = &sdhci;
    > > + };
    > > +
    >
    > Any reason for this odering?
    >
    > I.e. some previous incarnations had it ordered as (emmc, mmc, sdio).
    > This is also true for the ChromeOS out-of-tree usage of those, the
    > rk3399 dts in the chromeos-4.4 tree also orders this as sdhci, sdmmc, sdio.
    >
    > And I guess a further question would be when we're doing arbitary orderings
    > anyway, why is this not in rk3399.dtsi ;-) ?

    Though I personally like the idea of eMMC, which is typically
    built-in, as being the "0" number, I'm personally happy with any
    numbering scheme that's consistent. Ordering them by base address is
    OK w/ me and seems less controversial. That seems like it could go in
    rk3399.dtsi and then if a particular board wanted a different order
    they could override it in their board file. The downside of putting
    in rk3399 is that boards that don't have all SD/MMC interfaces enabled
    would definitely get a new number compared to old kernels, but
    hopefully this is the last time?

    -Doug

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-11-04 16:42    [W:3.901 / U:0.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site