Message ID | 20250329082123.2325267-1-arnd@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | mmc: renesas_sdhi: add regulator dependency | expand |
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 09:20:52AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > config MMC_SDHI > tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" > - depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST > + depends on SUPERH || (ARCH_RENESAS && RESET_CONTROLLER) || COMPILE_TEST > + depends on REGULATOR Hmm, this is too strict IMO. SuperH does not need REGULATOR. But adding REGULATOR to ARCH_RENESAS like RESET_CONTROLLER will still fail for COMPILE_TEST, right? Maybe we need to maintain the dependency in Kconfig after all: depends on REGULATOR if ARCH_R8A<whichever needs it> ?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025, at 10:46, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 09:20:52AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> config MMC_SDHI >> tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" >> - depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST >> + depends on SUPERH || (ARCH_RENESAS && RESET_CONTROLLER) || COMPILE_TEST >> + depends on REGULATOR > > Hmm, this is too strict IMO. SuperH does not need REGULATOR. I haven't tried building on sh, but I don't see why it wouldn't need the regulator dependency. The code that calls it is rcfg.of_node = of_get_child_by_name(dev->of_node, "vqmmc-regulator"); if (!of_device_is_available(rcfg.of_node)) { of_node_put(rcfg.of_node); rcfg.of_node = NULL; } if (rcfg.of_node) { rcfg.driver_data = priv->host; rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, &renesas_sdhi_vqmmc_regulator, &rcfg); ... which sounds like regulators are always needed when of_get_child_by_name() may return a non-NULL pointer, i.e. when CONFIG_OF is enabled. If this is correct, maybe this is the best variant: config MMC_SDHI tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST depends on (REGULATOR && RESET_CONTROLLER) || !OF CONFIG_ARCH_RENESAS is only set when CONFIG_OF is also set, so both subsystem dependencies are covered by that, while SUPERH doesn't currently enable OF, but will need the regulator and reset controller if that patch is ever merged. Arnd
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 11:46:10AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025, at 10:46, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 09:20:52AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > >> config MMC_SDHI > >> tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" > >> - depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST > >> + depends on SUPERH || (ARCH_RENESAS && RESET_CONTROLLER) || COMPILE_TEST > >> + depends on REGULATOR > > > > Hmm, this is too strict IMO. SuperH does not need REGULATOR. > > I haven't tried building on sh, but I don't see why it wouldn't > need the regulator dependency. The code that calls it is > > rcfg.of_node = of_get_child_by_name(dev->of_node, "vqmmc-regulator"); > if (!of_device_is_available(rcfg.of_node)) { > of_node_put(rcfg.of_node); > rcfg.of_node = NULL; > } > > if (rcfg.of_node) { > rcfg.driver_data = priv->host; > rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, &renesas_sdhi_vqmmc_regulator, &rcfg); > ... > > which sounds like regulators are always needed when > of_get_child_by_name() may return a non-NULL pointer, i.e. > when CONFIG_OF is enabled. rcfg.of_node will be NULLed when the regulator device is not available. Which is only true for a few SoC variants. Most other SoCs use 'vmmc-supply' insteand of 'vqmmc-regulator'. > If this is correct, maybe this is the best variant: > > config MMC_SDHI > tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" > depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST > depends on (REGULATOR && RESET_CONTROLLER) || !OF > > CONFIG_ARCH_RENESAS is only set when CONFIG_OF is also set, > so both subsystem dependencies are covered by that, while > SUPERH doesn't currently enable OF, but will need the > regulator and reset controller if that patch is ever merged. Even given the above, I like this approach and think it still works. But Biju is the SDHI regulator expert here.
Hi All, > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > Sent: 29 March 2025 11:47 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: renesas_sdhi: add regulator dependency > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 11:46:10AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025, at 10:46, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 09:20:52AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > >> config MMC_SDHI > > >> tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" > > >> - depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST > > >> + depends on SUPERH || (ARCH_RENESAS && RESET_CONTROLLER) || COMPILE_TEST > > >> + depends on REGULATOR > > > > > > Hmm, this is too strict IMO. SuperH does not need REGULATOR. > > > > I haven't tried building on sh, but I don't see why it wouldn't need > > the regulator dependency. The code that calls it is > > > > rcfg.of_node = of_get_child_by_name(dev->of_node, "vqmmc-regulator"); > > if (!of_device_is_available(rcfg.of_node)) { > > of_node_put(rcfg.of_node); > > rcfg.of_node = NULL; > > } > > > > if (rcfg.of_node) { > > rcfg.driver_data = priv->host; > > rdev = devm_regulator_register(dev, &renesas_sdhi_vqmmc_regulator, &rcfg); > > ... > > > > which sounds like regulators are always needed when > > of_get_child_by_name() may return a non-NULL pointer, i.e. > > when CONFIG_OF is enabled. > > rcfg.of_node will be NULLed when the regulator device is not available. > Which is only true for a few SoC variants. Most other SoCs use 'vmmc-supply' instean d of 'vqmmc- > regulator'. Yes, Only few SoCs has internal regulator support and is based on of_device_is_available(). > > > If this is correct, maybe this is the best variant: > > > > config MMC_SDHI > > tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" > > depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST > > depends on (REGULATOR && RESET_CONTROLLER) || !OF > > > > CONFIG_ARCH_RENESAS is only set when CONFIG_OF is also set, so both > > subsystem dependencies are covered by that, while SUPERH doesn't > > currently enable OF, but will need the regulator and reset controller > > if that patch is ever merged. > > Even given the above, I like this approach and think it still works. > But Biju is the SDHI regulator expert here. Tested-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> Cheers, Biju
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig index d7c90a9630e9..c0f03367d765 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig @@ -692,9 +692,9 @@ config MMC_TMIO_CORE config MMC_SDHI tristate "Renesas SDHI SD/SDIO controller support" - depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST + depends on SUPERH || (ARCH_RENESAS && RESET_CONTROLLER) || COMPILE_TEST + depends on REGULATOR select MMC_TMIO_CORE - select RESET_CONTROLLER if ARCH_RENESAS help This provides support for the SDHI SD/SDIO controller found in Renesas SuperH, ARM and ARM64 based SoCs