Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201202150205.20150-1-muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@intel.com>
 <CAPDyKFrg5ur3iTp-dAoVqV5fiFgcmt01j9R7z3_i=tqhWW3WNg@mail.gmail.com> <20201202122520.GD4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201202122520.GD4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:41:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFra1+HPGYjG30LkuPxPyN8mQaZan4+AFLKf7_gvd979PA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for
 Keem Bay SOC
To:     "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     "Zulkifli, Muhammad Husaini" <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@intel.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai" 
        <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@intel.com>,
        Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>,
        mgross@linux.intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 13:24, Shevchenko, Andriy
<andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:53:42AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 08:02, <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@intel.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > Kindly help to review this patch set.
> >
> > This version looks a lot better to me, but I am still requesting you
> > to model the pinctrl correctly. I don't see a reason not to, but I may
> > have overlooked some things.
>
> I'm wondering why we need to mock up a pin control from something which has no
> pin control interface. It's rather communication with firmware that does pin
> control under the hood, but it also may be different hardware in the other /
> future generations. Would you accept mocking up the same calls over the kernel
> as pin control, as something else?

Well, my point is that modeling this a pinctrl would keep the mmc
driver portable. Additionally, it's very common to manage pinctrls in
mmc drivers, so it's not like this is an entirely new thing that I
propose.

If/when it turns out that there is a new HW having a different pinctrl
interface, it would just mean that we need a new pinctrl driver, but
can leave the mmc driver as is.

>
> > Would you mind to re-submit to include the gpio/pinctlr list and the
> > maintainers, to get their opinion.
>
> And I will send immediately the same comment which I believe Linus W. supports.
> But who knows...
>
> Cc'ed to Linus as I mentioned him.

Thanks, let's see what Linus thinks then.

Kind regards
Uffe