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;
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1369-gd055fb5e7c-fm-20211018.002-gd055fb5e
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <125453f3-55d5-4b2a-afe8-6e76b268ce01@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210922103116.30652-3-chin-ting_kuo@aspeedtech.com>
References: <20210922103116.30652-1-chin-ting_kuo@aspeedtech.com>
 <20210922103116.30652-3-chin-ting_kuo@aspeedtech.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Oct 2021 11:01:26 +1030
From:   "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@aj.id.au>
To:     "Chin-Ting Kuo" <chin-ting_kuo@aspeedtech.com>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Joel Stanley" <joel@jms.id.au>,
        "Michael Turquette" <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        "Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        "Adrian Hunter" <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     BMC-SW@aspeedtech.com, "Steven Lee" <steven_lee@aspeedtech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] sdhci: aspeed: Add SDR50 support
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Hi Chin-Ting,

Sorry for the delay in looking at your series.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, at 20:01, Chin-Ting Kuo wrote:
> From the analog waveform analysis result, SD/SDIO controller
> of AST2600 cannot always work well with 200MHz. The upper bound
> stable frequency for SD/SDIO controller is 100MHz. Thus, SDR50
> supported bit, instead of SDR104, in capability 2 register
> should be set in advance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chin-Ting Kuo <chin-ting_kuo@aspeedtech.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-aspeed.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-aspeed.c 
> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-aspeed.c
> index 6e4e132903a6..c6eaeb02e3f9 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-aspeed.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-aspeed.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@
>  #define ASPEED_SDC_CAP1_1_8V           (0 * 32 + 26)
>  /* SDIO{14,24} */
>  #define ASPEED_SDC_CAP2_SDR104         (1 * 32 + 1)
> +/* SDIO{14,24} */

I don't think we need to duplicate this comment.

> +#define ASPEED_SDC_CAP2_SDR50          (1 * 32 + 0)

Can we keep the defines in increasing bit order (i.e. put 
ASPEED_SDC_CAP2_SDR50 above ASPEED_SDC_CAP2_SDR104)?

> 
>  struct aspeed_sdc {
>  	struct clk *clk;
> @@ -410,11 +412,17 @@ static int aspeed_sdhci_probe(struct 
> platform_device *pdev)
>  	sdhci_get_of_property(pdev);
> 
>  	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "mmc-hs200-1_8v") ||
> +		of_property_read_bool(np, "sd-uhs-sdr50") ||

Minor formatting issue, but can you make sure all the conditions are 
aligned vertically from the left?

>  	    of_property_read_bool(np, "sd-uhs-sdr104")) {
>  		aspeed_sdc_set_slot_capability(host, dev->parent, ASPEED_SDC_CAP1_1_8V,
>  					       true, slot);
>  	}
> 
> +	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "sd-uhs-sdr50")) {
> +		aspeed_sdc_set_slot_capability(host, dev->parent, ASPEED_SDC_CAP2_SDR50,
> +					       true, slot);
> +	}
> +
>  	if (of_property_read_bool(np, "sd-uhs-sdr104")) {
>  		aspeed_sdc_set_slot_capability(host, dev->parent, ASPEED_SDC_CAP2_SDR104,
>  					       true, slot);
> -- 
> 2.17.1