Adrian, Your comments are scattered over various functions, and so I would like to address them in separate replies.
First, I'd like to discuss sdhci_[add|remove]_host(). On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 05:08:32PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 10/07/20 2:10 pm, Ben Chuang wrote: > > From: Ben Chuang <[email protected]> > > > > In this commit, UHS-II related operations will be called via a function > > pointer array, sdhci_uhs2_ops, in order to make UHS-II support as > > a kernel module. > > This array will be initialized only if CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2 is enabled > > and when the UHS-II module is loaded. Otherwise, all the functions > > stay void. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Chuang <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <[email protected]> > > --- (snip) > > if (intmask & (SDHCI_INT_CARD_INSERT | SDHCI_INT_CARD_REMOVE)) { > > u32 present = sdhci_readl(host, SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) & > > SDHCI_CARD_PRESENT; > > @@ -4717,6 +4812,14 @@ int sdhci_setup_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > > /* This may alter mmc->*_blk_* parameters */ > > sdhci_allocate_bounce_buffer(host); > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && > > + host->version >= SDHCI_SPEC_400 && > > + sdhci_uhs2_ops.add_host) { > > + ret = sdhci_uhs2_ops.add_host(host, host->caps1); > > + if (ret) > > + goto unreg; > > + } > > + > > I think you should look at creating uhs2_add_host() instead > > > return 0; > > > > unreg: > > @@ -4738,6 +4841,8 @@ void sdhci_cleanup_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > > { > > struct mmc_host *mmc = host->mmc; > > > > + /* FIXME: Do we have to do some cleanup for UHS2 here? */ > > + > > if (!IS_ERR(mmc->supply.vqmmc)) > > regulator_disable(mmc->supply.vqmmc); > > > > @@ -4766,6 +4871,14 @@ int __sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > > mmc->cqe_ops = NULL; > > } > > > > + if ((mmc->caps & MMC_CAP_UHS2) && !host->v4_mode) { > > + /* host doesn't want to enable UHS2 support */ > > + mmc->caps &= ~MMC_CAP_UHS2; > > + mmc->flags &= ~MMC_UHS2_SUPPORT; > > + > > + /* FIXME: Do we have to do some cleanup here? */ > > + } > > + > > host->complete_wq = alloc_workqueue("sdhci", flags, 0); > > if (!host->complete_wq) > > return -ENOMEM; > > @@ -4812,6 +4925,9 @@ int __sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > > unled: > > sdhci_led_unregister(host); > > unirq: > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && > > + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host) > > + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host(host, 0); > > sdhci_do_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_ALL); > > sdhci_writel(host, 0, SDHCI_INT_ENABLE); > > sdhci_writel(host, 0, SDHCI_SIGNAL_ENABLE); > > @@ -4869,6 +4985,10 @@ void sdhci_remove_host(struct sdhci_host *host, int > > dead) > > > > sdhci_led_unregister(host); > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_UHS2) && > > + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host) > > + sdhci_uhs2_ops.remove_host(host, dead); > > + > > I think you should look at creating uhs2_remove_host() instead You suggest that we will have separate sdhci_uhs2_[add|remove]_host(), but I don't think it's always convenient. UHS-II capable host will be set to call sdhci_uhs2_add_host() explicitly, but we can't do that in case of pci and pltfm based drivers as they utilize common helper functions, sdhci_pci_probe() and sdhci_pltfm_register(), respectively. Therefore, we inevitably have to call sdhci_uhs2_add_host() there. If so, why should we distinguish sdhci_uhs2_add_host from sdhci_uhs_add_host? I don't see any good reason. Moreover, as a result, there exists a mixed usage of sdhci_ interfaces and sdhci_uhs2_ interfaces in sdhci-pci-core.c and sdhci-pltfm.c. It sounds odd to me. -Takahiro Akashi > > > if (!dead) > > sdhci_do_reset(host, SDHCI_RESET_ALL); > > > > >
