Hi Gregory,

2016-11-24 10:44 GMT+01:00 Gregory CLEMENT [off-list ref]:

Hi Arnd,

 On jeu., nov. 24 2016, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 10:22:31 AM CET Gregory CLEMENT wrote:

quoted

I don't have an option for mmc in general, but using child node do not
fit at all the xenon controller.

For this controller each slot has its own set of register, so there is
no common ressource to share so no advantage to use it. Using child node
in our case will just make the code more complex for no benefit.

If every slot has its own registers, what is it that makes up the
'controller'? It sounds to me that you just have to adjust the terminology
and talk about multiple controllers then, with one slot per controller.

I agree and actually there were some words about in at the begining of
the binding:

"A single Xenon IP can support multiple slots.
Each slot acts as an independent SDHC. It owns independent resources, such
as register sets clock and PHY.
Each slot should have an independent device tree node."

All the confusion came from the fact that we still need to identify a
slot ID. For an obscure reason the hardware can't guess the slot ID from
the address register."

How about to avoid confusion, by simply renaming this number to
port-id/xenon-id or anything else but slot? I guess this may allow to
avoid some misunderstandings.

Best regards,
Marcin