mbox series

[0/2] mmc: J7200: Add support for higher speed modes in MMCSD subsystems

Message ID 20210122162403.20700-1-a-govindraju@ti.com (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series mmc: J7200: Add support for higher speed modes in MMCSD subsystems | expand

Message

Aswath Govindraju Jan. 22, 2021, 4:24 p.m. UTC
The following series of patches
- adds support for HS200 and HS400 speed modes in MMCSD0 subsystem
- adds support for UHS-I speed modes in MMCSD1 subsystem 

Aswath Govindraju (2):
  arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for HS200 and HS400 modes
    in MMCSD0 subsystem
  arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1
    subsystem

 arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Nishanth Menon Jan. 22, 2021, 6:06 p.m. UTC | #1
On 21:54-20210122, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> The following series of patches
> - adds support for HS200 and HS400 speed modes in MMCSD0 subsystem
> - adds support for UHS-I speed modes in MMCSD1 subsystem 
> 
> Aswath Govindraju (2):
>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for HS200 and HS400 modes
>     in MMCSD0 subsystem
>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1
>     subsystem


Just a curious couple of questions:
Does squashing both the patches create a problem for understanding or a
later bisect? I kind of thought these mostly go hand in hand between the
instances, am I mistaken?

Are there any otap delay params update needed or the defaults are good
to go?

Will also help to provide some verification log along with this.
Aswath Govindraju Jan. 25, 2021, 1:42 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Nishanth,

On 22/01/21 11:36 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 21:54-20210122, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>> The following series of patches
>> - adds support for HS200 and HS400 speed modes in MMCSD0 subsystem
>> - adds support for UHS-I speed modes in MMCSD1 subsystem 
>>
>> Aswath Govindraju (2):
>>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for HS200 and HS400 modes
>>     in MMCSD0 subsystem
>>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1
>>     subsystem
> 
> 
> Just a curious couple of questions:
> Does squashing both the patches create a problem for understanding or a
> later bisect? I kind of thought these mostly go hand in hand between the
> instances, am I mistaken?
> 

Yes, they can be squashed. I post a respin doing this.

> Are there any otap delay params update needed or the defaults are good
> to go?
> 

The otap values are already up-to-date with the data sheet and don't
need updation.

> Will also help to provide some verification log along with this.
> 

May I know what sort of logs would be best to provide. Would enumeration
logs during boot suffice ?

Like this,
https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/v9NRV7GwMw/ ?

Thanks,
Aswath
Nishanth Menon Jan. 25, 2021, 1:51 p.m. UTC | #3
On 19:12-20210125, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> Hi Nishanth,
> 
> On 22/01/21 11:36 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 21:54-20210122, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> >> The following series of patches
> >> - adds support for HS200 and HS400 speed modes in MMCSD0 subsystem
> >> - adds support for UHS-I speed modes in MMCSD1 subsystem 
> >>
> >> Aswath Govindraju (2):
> >>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for HS200 and HS400 modes
> >>     in MMCSD0 subsystem
> >>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1
> >>     subsystem
> > 
> > 
> > Just a curious couple of questions:
> > Does squashing both the patches create a problem for understanding or a
> > later bisect? I kind of thought these mostly go hand in hand between the
> > instances, am I mistaken?
> > 
> 
> Yes, they can be squashed. I post a respin doing this.

Thanks.

> 
> > Are there any otap delay params update needed or the defaults are good
> > to go?
> > 
> 
> The otap values are already up-to-date with the data sheet and don't
> need updation.

Thanks for the clarification.

> 
> > Will also help to provide some verification log along with this.
> > 
> 
> May I know what sort of logs would be best to provide. Would enumeration
> logs during boot suffice ?
> 
> Like this,
> https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/v9NRV7GwMw/ ?

That just says we detected the cards, no?
I thought we had tests around this? Something including /sys/kernel/debug/mmc*/ios

Something that demonstrates that this actually runs at the claimed
speeds? That would be nice on linux-next, if possible as well..
Aswath Govindraju Jan. 25, 2021, 2:13 p.m. UTC | #4
Hi Nishanth,

On 25/01/21 7:21 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 19:12-20210125, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>> Hi Nishanth,
>>
>> On 22/01/21 11:36 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> On 21:54-20210122, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>>>> The following series of patches
>>>> - adds support for HS200 and HS400 speed modes in MMCSD0 subsystem
>>>> - adds support for UHS-I speed modes in MMCSD1 subsystem 
>>>>
>>>> Aswath Govindraju (2):
>>>>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for HS200 and HS400 modes
>>>>     in MMCSD0 subsystem
>>>>   arm64: dts: ti: k3-j7200-main: Add support for UHS-I modes in MMCSD1
>>>>     subsystem
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a curious couple of questions:
>>> Does squashing both the patches create a problem for understanding or a
>>> later bisect? I kind of thought these mostly go hand in hand between the
>>> instances, am I mistaken?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, they can be squashed. I post a respin doing this.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>>
>>> Are there any otap delay params update needed or the defaults are good
>>> to go?
>>>
>>
>> The otap values are already up-to-date with the data sheet and don't
>> need updation.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
>>
>>> Will also help to provide some verification log along with this.
>>>
>>
>> May I know what sort of logs would be best to provide. Would enumeration
>> logs during boot suffice ?
>>
>> Like this,
>> https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/v9NRV7GwMw/ ?
> 
> That just says we detected the cards, no?
> I thought we had tests around this? Something including /sys/kernel/debug/mmc*/ios
> 
> Something that demonstrates that this actually runs at the claimed
> speeds? That would be nice on linux-next, if possible as well..
> 

Yes there are tests which confirm that claimed speeds are functional. I
will add them in the respin.

Thanks,
Aswath
Nishanth Menon Jan. 25, 2021, 2:18 p.m. UTC | #5
On 19:43-20210125, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
> >>> Will also help to provide some verification log along with this.
> >>>
> >>
> >> May I know what sort of logs would be best to provide. Would enumeration
> >> logs during boot suffice ?
> >>
> >> Like this,
> >> https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/v9NRV7GwMw/ ?
> > 
> > That just says we detected the cards, no?
> > I thought we had tests around this? Something including /sys/kernel/debug/mmc*/ios
> > 
> > Something that demonstrates that this actually runs at the claimed
> > speeds? That would be nice on linux-next, if possible as well..
> > 
> 
> Yes there are tests which confirm that claimed speeds are functional. I
> will add them in the respin.

Awesome.  much appreciated.