| Message ID | 20201120233831.447365-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mmc: sdhci: Update firmware interface API | expand |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 00:39, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: > > The device_* calls were added a few years ago to abstract > DT/ACPI/fwnode firmware interfaces. Lets convert the two > sdhci caps fields to use the generic calls rather than the OF > specific ones. This has the side effect of allowing > ACPI based devices to quirk themselves when the caps field > is broken. > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> Applied for next, thanks! Kind regards Uffe > --- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index 592a55a34b58..feba64fbde16 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -3992,10 +3992,10 @@ void __sdhci_read_caps(struct sdhci_host *host, const u16 *ver, > if (host->v4_mode) > sdhci_do_enable_v4_mode(host); > > - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, > - "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask); > - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, > - "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps); > + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), > + "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask, 1); > + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), > + "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps, 1); > > v = ver ? *ver : sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_VERSION); > host->version = (v & SDHCI_SPEC_VER_MASK) >> SDHCI_SPEC_VER_SHIFT; > -- > 2.26.2 >
On 24/11/20 4:25 pm, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 00:39, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: >> >> The device_* calls were added a few years ago to abstract >> DT/ACPI/fwnode firmware interfaces. Lets convert the two >> sdhci caps fields to use the generic calls rather than the OF >> specific ones. This has the side effect of allowing >> ACPI based devices to quirk themselves when the caps field >> is broken. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> > > Applied for next, thanks! > > Kind regards > Uffe > > >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> index 592a55a34b58..feba64fbde16 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> @@ -3992,10 +3992,10 @@ void __sdhci_read_caps(struct sdhci_host *host, const u16 *ver, >> if (host->v4_mode) >> sdhci_do_enable_v4_mode(host); >> >> - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, >> - "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask); >> - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, >> - "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps); >> + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), >> + "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask, 1); >> + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), >> + "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps, 1); But why not use device_property_read_u64()? >> >> v = ver ? *ver : sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_VERSION); >> host->version = (v & SDHCI_SPEC_VER_MASK) >> SDHCI_SPEC_VER_SHIFT; >> -- >> 2.26.2 >>
Hi, On 11/24/20 8:51 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote: > On 24/11/20 4:25 pm, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 00:39, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: >>> >>> The device_* calls were added a few years ago to abstract >>> DT/ACPI/fwnode firmware interfaces. Lets convert the two >>> sdhci caps fields to use the generic calls rather than the OF >>> specific ones. This has the side effect of allowing >>> ACPI based devices to quirk themselves when the caps field >>> is broken. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> >> >> Applied for next, thanks! >> >> Kind regards >> Uffe >> >> >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 8 ++++---- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> index 592a55a34b58..feba64fbde16 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> @@ -3992,10 +3992,10 @@ void __sdhci_read_caps(struct sdhci_host *host, const u16 *ver, >>> if (host->v4_mode) >>> sdhci_do_enable_v4_mode(host); >>> >>> - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, >>> - "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask); >>> - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, >>> - "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps); >>> + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), >>> + "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask, 1); >>> + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), >>> + "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps, 1); > > But why not use device_property_read_u64()? That would be more concise in this case. I will post and update. Thanks,
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c index 592a55a34b58..feba64fbde16 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -3992,10 +3992,10 @@ void __sdhci_read_caps(struct sdhci_host *host, const u16 *ver, if (host->v4_mode) sdhci_do_enable_v4_mode(host); - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, - "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask); - of_property_read_u64(mmc_dev(host->mmc)->of_node, - "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps); + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), + "sdhci-caps-mask", &dt_caps_mask, 1); + device_property_read_u64_array(mmc_dev(host->mmc), + "sdhci-caps", &dt_caps, 1); v = ver ? *ver : sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_VERSION); host->version = (v & SDHCI_SPEC_VER_MASK) >> SDHCI_SPEC_VER_SHIFT;
The device_* calls were added a few years ago to abstract DT/ACPI/fwnode firmware interfaces. Lets convert the two sdhci caps fields to use the generic calls rather than the OF specific ones. This has the side effect of allowing ACPI based devices to quirk themselves when the caps field is broken. Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)