On Thu, 2014-03-06 at 02:31PM +0100, Mike Looijmans wrote:

On 03/04/2014 10:00 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 10:06PM +0200, Eli Billauer wrote:

quoted

Hello Sören,

wp-inverted solves the practical problem indeed, and fools the
driver into thinking that the card has an inverted write protection
sensor, and the logic zero that it finds in the hardware register
means that the card isn't write protected.

I'm insisting on this patch, because I think that the device tree
should describe the hardware as it is, and not fool the driver into
behaving the way we want it to. These tricks always bite back later
on.

Well, why is broken-wp more accurate than wp-inverted? Strictly
speaking the WP is there and working, it's just tied off to some value
you want to have interpreted the other way.
Anyway, seems like this is solvable with wp-inverted and whether the
additional quirk is needed I leave to others do decide.

I've begged for this patch - or a similar one - to be included too,
because on our boards, the "wp" value appears to be sort of random.
Out of 5 prototype boards, 3 would only boot with wp-inverted while
the other 2 wouldn't boot with wp-inverted set.

In our case I really don't know (and I don't care either) to which
logic level the wp happens to think it's wired. I just want to be
able to tell the driver that the WP line is
free-floating-and-might-have-any-random-value-at-any-given-moment
which is a bit long, so I'd go for disable-wp instead.

Could you provide the design you use and give more details? According to
the people I talked to, the signal should never float, unless you pin it
out and don't drive it.
Actually, you should open a support case for this. It is not supposed to
happen.

	Sören