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> <CAPDyKFra1+HPGYjG30LkuPxPyN8mQaZan4+AFLKf7_gvd979PA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFra1+HPGYjG30LkuPxPyN8mQaZan4+AFLKf7_gvd979PA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeXxPoNqJVQojDC1G3gzJUJEiJs2UOm6kob71Aqa_7v2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for
 Keem Bay SOC
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "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>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:44 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> 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.

My point is that it may be *not* a pin control at all.
And in that case you will need to mock up (what exactly?) and update
the MMC driver.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko