[PATCH] mmc: omap_hsmmc: Add support for Erratum 2.1.1.128 in device tree boot
From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon)
Date: 2014-01-21 19:39:20
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-mmc, linux-omap
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Felipe Balbi [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:38:00AM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:quoted
On 01/20/2014 05:39 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:quoted
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:29:02PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:quoted
When device is booted using devicetree, platforms impacted by Erratum 2.1.1.128 is not detected easily in the mmc driver. This erratum indicates that the module cannot do multi-block transfers. Handle this by providing a boolean flag to indicate to driver that it is working on a hardware with mentioned limitation.sure there's no way of reading the revision register to figure this one out without having to add a new DT attribute ?I did a quick patch to read the Module revision register: http://slexy.org/view/s21TKvlWlR sdp2430: Revision: 1.2, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt OMAP3430-ldp: (ES2.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt SDP3430:(ES3.0) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt AM3517-evm: (ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt AM3517-crane:(ES1.1): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt AM37x-evm: (ES1.2) Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt OMAP3630-beag-xm (ES1.2): Revision: 2.6, Spec: 0.0, normal interrupt am335x-evm:(ES1.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt am335x-sk: (ES2.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt am335x-beaglebone-black:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt sdp4430.txt: (ES2.2): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt OMAP4460-panda-es (ES1.1): Revision: 3.1, Spec: 0.1, normal interrupt OMAP5uevm:(ES2.0): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt dra7-evm (es1.1): Revision: 3.3, Spec: 0.2, normal interrupt OMAP3430-ldp seems to be the only one impacted with module revision 2.6 -> so using revision information is not really helpful here. Hence the usage of a flag in dt attribute to indicate hardware impacted by erratum.alright, that's too bad. Seems like revision in this module isn't very useful :-(
Can I take that as an acked-by? Regards, Nishanth Menon