On 4/20/21 9:59 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Jaehoon,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> 2021年4月20日(火) 7:05 Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com>:
>>
>> Hi Masami,
>>
>> On 4/17/21 8:38 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.si...@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.si...@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hirama...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/Kconfig | 10 ++++++
>>> drivers/mmc/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c | 81
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> drivers/mmc/sdhci.c | 9 +++++
>>> 4 files changed, 101 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/Kconfig b/drivers/mmc/Kconfig
>>> index f8ca52efb6..a9ae419e41 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/Kconfig
>>> @@ -549,6 +549,16 @@ config MMC_SDHCI_IPROC
>>>
>>> If unsure, say N.
>>>
>>> +config F_SDH30_SDHCI
>>
>> MMS_SDHCI_F_SDH30 or MMC_SDHCI_xxx.
>
> OK. I'll change it.
>
>>
>>> + bool "SDHCI support for Fujitsu Semiconductor F_SDH30"
>>> + depends on BLK && DM_MMC
>>> + depends on MMC_SDHCI
>>> + help
>>> + This selects the Secure Digital Host Controller Interface (SDHCI)
>>> + Needed by some Fujitsu SoC for MMC / SD / SDIO support.
>>> + If you have a controller with this interface, say Y or M here.
>>> + If unsure, say N.
>>> +
>>> config MMC_SDHCI_KONA
>>> bool "SDHCI support on Broadcom KONA platform"
>>> depends on MMC_SDHCI
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/Makefile b/drivers/mmc/Makefile
>>> index 89d6af3db3..b48a76ba94 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/Makefile
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/Makefile
>>> @@ -76,3 +76,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MMC_UNIPHIER) += tmio-common.o
>>> uniphier-sd.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_RENESAS_SDHI) += tmio-common.o renesas-sdhi.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MMC_BCM2835) += bcm2835_sdhost.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MMC_MTK) += mtk-sd.o
>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_F_SDH30_SDHCI) += f_sdh30.o
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c b/drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000000..44c6521bfe
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>> +/*
>>> + * Socionext F_SDH30 eMMC driver
>>> + * Copyright 2021 Linaro Ltd.
>>> + * Copyright 2021 Socionext, Inc.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#include <common.h>
>>> +#include <clk.h>
>>> +#include <dm.h>
>>> +#include <malloc.h>
>>> +#include <sdhci.h>
>>> +
>>> +struct f_sdh30_plat {
>>> + struct mmc_config cfg;
>>> + struct mmc mmc;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>>> +
>>> +static int f_sdh30_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>>
>> xxx_sdhci_probe().
>
> Let me confirm. The controller name is F_SDH30, so it is better to be
> f_sdh30_sdhci_probe(), correct?
I think that it's better. :)
It's my preference. But other driver are using the similar naming.
>
>>> +{
>>> + struct mmc_uclass_priv *upriv = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
>>> + struct f_sdh30_plat *plat = dev_get_plat(dev);
>>> + struct sdhci_host *host = dev_get_priv(dev);
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = mmc_of_parse(dev, &plat->cfg);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + host->mmc = &plat->mmc;
>>> + host->mmc->dev = dev;
>>> + host->mmc->priv = host;
>>> +
>>> + ret = sdhci_setup_cfg(&plat->cfg, host, 200000000, 400000);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + upriv->mmc = host->mmc;
>>> +
>>> + mmc_set_clock(host->mmc, host->mmc->cfg->f_min, MMC_CLK_ENABLE);
>>> +
>>> + return sdhci_probe(dev);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int f_sdh30_of_to_plat(struct udevice *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct sdhci_host *host = dev_get_priv(dev);
>>> +
>>> + host->name = strdup(dev->name);
>>> + host->ioaddr = dev_read_addr_ptr(dev);
>>> + host->bus_width = dev_read_u32_default(dev, "bus-width", 4);
>>> + host->index = dev_read_u32_default(dev, "index", 0);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int f_sdh30_bind(struct udevice *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct f_sdh30_plat *plat = dev_get_plat(dev);
>>> +
>>> + return sdhci_bind(dev, &plat->mmc, &plat->cfg);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct udevice_id f_sdh30_mmc_ids[] = {
>>> + { .compatible = "fujitsu,mb86s70-sdhci-3.0" },
>>> + { }
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +U_BOOT_DRIVER(f_sdh30_drv) = {
>>> + .name = "f_sdh30_sdhci",
>>> + .id = UCLASS_MMC,
>>> + .of_match = f_sdh30_mmc_ids,
>>> + .of_to_plat = f_sdh30_of_to_plat,
>>> + .ops = &sdhci_ops,
>>> + .bind = f_sdh30_bind,
>>> + .probe = f_sdh30_probe,
>>> + .priv_auto = sizeof(struct sdhci_host),
>>> + .plat_auto = sizeof(struct f_sdh30_plat),
>>> +};
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
>>> index d9ab6a0a83..f038debc6c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c
>>> @@ -708,6 +708,15 @@ static int sdhci_init(struct mmc *mmc)
>>>
>>> sdhci_set_power(host, fls(mmc->cfg->voltages) - 1);
>>>
>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_F_SDH30_SDHCI)) {
>>
>> I don't want to add specific sdhci driver configuration in sdhci.c.
>>
>> According to below comment and Specification,
>> it has to delay 1ms. Can it be removed the above condition checking?
>
> Yes, of course!
>
>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Reference to Part1 Physical Layer Simplified Specification
>>> + * Ver 3.01, 6.4.1 Power Up
>>> + * This delay must be at least 74 clock sizes, or 1 ms.
>>> + */
>>> + udelay(1000);
>>
>> I don't have any objection about this, If possible, it needs to calculate
>> clock-cycle with real clock value in future.
>>
>
> Should I split this part as an independent patch?
I hope so. :)
Thanks
Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
