Thread (49 messages) 49 messages, 7 authors, 2014-06-09

Re: RFC: representing sdio devices oob interrupt, clks, etc. in device tree

From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Date: 2014-05-28 11:03:51
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-mmc

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:19:11AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 27 May 2014 19:53, Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
This then either conflicts with cases where we need to describe the
actual contents of the slot with a compatible string or means that the
SDIO driver needs to handle powerup sequencing since we should be
binding to the first compatible we find.  If the host controller driver
and/or subsystem is going to deal with the powering up it's not clear
that it specifically needs to be the compatible property that's used
to determine the powerup method, it could just be a boolean or a
'power-method = blah' property (where blah is one of a series of strings
defining methods).  Alternatively we could have separate nodes for the
slot and SDIO device but that feels meh.  What's the hard requirement
for it to specifically be a compatible property?
Since the sdio bus is a discoverable bus, we must leave the "SDIO card
device id" outside the information of the DT child node. Instead the
"SDIO card device id" will be fetched once the card has been properly
powered and initialized. From sdio bus' ->match(), the "SDIO func
driver id" will be matched with the "SDIO card device id".
What we need to describe in the child node is only what "powerup
driver" to use (an obviously it's resources). I don't see why there
should be a conflict in using a compatible property, but I might be
missing your point.
I wouldn't assume that the SDIO bus will always be accurately
discoverable - hardware engineers can always repurpose things for other
purposes.
quoted
There's also the need for the SDIO device to be able to get at the
resources provided and actively work with them at runtime if it wants to
manage things more actively (partial poweroff for low power states or
managing clock rates for example).
Yes, that's is also a reason to why I thought it would make sense to
have a "powerup driver". Typically this driver should support runtime
PM to handle these kind of fine grained power management.
No, runtime PM isn't really fine grained - I'm talking about things
like starting and stopping individual resources or configuring them.
The SDIO func driver will have access (through the struct
mmc_card|host) to the "powerup driver's" struct device, and can use
pm_runtime_get|put() for it, to tell the "powerup driver" when it may
go into power save state.
This kind of fine grained power management is not related directly to
the SDIO specification, and should not be a part of the mmc core in my
opinion.
If we don't have a compatible string in the DT child node of the mmc
host, but just a DT property - is there a way to achieve the above
anyway?
I don't see any relationship between having compatible strings and the
ability to achieve things like that to be honest.  Having compatible
strings has no real impact on what we can implement, the power driver
you're talking about can easily be library code or a feature of part of
the code that already exists - so long as we know what hardware is there
it's up to us how we interpret that.

Attachments

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help