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: <1629132650-26277-1-git-send-email-sbhanu@codeaurora.org> <CAD=FV=UqFczZ6tLzVuXhgKG9teSNTGt_RdqAxP4eXBN_eDDAtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UqFczZ6tLzVuXhgKG9teSNTGt_RdqAxP4eXBN_eDDAtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 06:44:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Wq-+Xzjc-o9p49pvf4A_q7L-THHp_wUQce47E+yMEgvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Use maximum drive strength
 values for eMMC
To:     Shaik Sajida Bhanu <sbhanu@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Asutosh Das <asutoshd@codeaurora.org>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>,
        pragalla@codeaurora.org, nitirawa@codeaurora.org,
        Ram Prakash Gupta <rampraka@codeaurora.org>,
        Sayali Lokhande <sayalil@codeaurora.org>,
        sartgarg@codeaurora.org, cang@codeaurora.org,
        Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 6:58 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@google.com> wrote:
>
> >                 pinconf-data {
> >                         pins = "sdc1_data";
> >                         bias-pull-up;
> > -                       drive-strength = <10>;
> > +                       drive-strength = <16>;
>
> I could be convinced that this is the right thing to do, but I want to
> really make sure that it has had sufficient testing. Specifically as
> this patch is written we'll be updating the drive strength for all
> boards. Increasing the drive strength can sometimes introduce new
> problems (reflections, noise, ...) so we have to be confident that
> we're not breaking someone that used to work by increasing the drive
> strength here. How much has this been tested?

From further discussion internally, it sounds as if this should be
fine and fixes more than just this one eMMC part. Thus:

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>