On 11 July 2018 at 17:19, Ludovic BARRE [off-list ref] wrote:

On 07/05/2018 05:26 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:

quoted

On 12 June 2018 at 15:14, Ludovic Barre [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Ludovic Barre <redacted>

This patch integrates qcom dml feature into mmci_dma file.
Qualcomm Data Mover lite/local is already a variant of mmci dmaengine.

Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <redacted>
---
  drivers/mmc/host/Makefile        |   1 -
  drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c          |   1 -
  drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h          |  35 ++++++++
  drivers/mmc/host/mmci_dma.c      | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
  drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.c | 177
---------------------------------------
  drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.h |  31 -------
  6 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 211 deletions(-)
  delete mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.c
  delete mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.h

No, this is not the way to go. Instead I I think there are two options.

1) Keep mmci_qcom_dml.c|h and thus add new files for the stm32 dma
variant.

2) Start by renaming mmci_qcom_dml.* to mmc_dma.* and then in the next
step add the code for stm32 dma into the renamed files.

I guess if there is some overlap in functionality, 2) may be best as
it could easier avoid open coding. However, I am fine with whatever
option and I expect that you knows what is best.

After patch 01 & 05 comments:
I will try to define a mmci_ops which contain some functions pointer
called by mmci.c (core).
A variant defines its mmci_ops.
where do you define the specific function:
-in a single file, mmci-ops.c or other (for the name, I'm not inspirated)
-or in specific file for each variant mmci-qcom.c or mmci-stm32.c

following the comment (above), I think we define a single file?

If I understand the question, the problem is how we should assign the
mmc host ops, which corresponds to the probed variant data!?

I took a stub at it and posted two patches which I think you should be
able to build upon. Please have a look.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe