On Friday 10 May 2013, Christian Daudt wrote:
> +
> +struct sdhci_bcm_kona_cfg {
> + unsigned int max_freq;
> + int is_8bit;
> + int irq;
> + int cd_gpio;
> + int wp_gpio;
> + int non_removable;
> +};
I see no use for this structure to be separate: a lot of the fields are
duplicated in the sdhci_host, or should just get merged into
sdhci_bcm_kona_dev.
> +struct sdhci_bcm_kona_dev {
> + struct sdhci_bcm_kona_cfg *cfg;
> + struct device *dev;
> + struct sdhci_host *host;
> + struct clk *peri_clk;
> + struct clk *sleep_clk;
> +};
The *dev and *host members in this structure are redundant, just
allocate it together with sdhci_host and use use container_of()
to get from the sdhci_host back it it.
> +static void sdhci_bcm_kona_sd_init(struct sdhci_host *host)
> +{
> + unsigned int val;
> +
> + /* enable the interrupt from the IP core */
> + val = sdhci_readl(host, KONA_SDHOST_COREIMR);
> + val |= KONA_SDHOST_IP;
> + sdhci_writel(host, val, KONA_SDHOST_COREIMR);
> +
> + /* Enable the AHB clock gating module to the host */
> + val = sdhci_readl(host, KONA_SDHOST_CORECTRL);
> + val |= KONA_SDHOST_EN;
> +
> + /*
> + * Back-to-Back register write needs a delay of 1ms at bootup (min 10uS)
> + * Back-to-Back writes to same register needs delay when SD bus clock
> + * is very low w.r.t AHB clock, mainly during boot-time and during card
> + * insert-removal.
> + */
> + mdelay(1);
> + sdhci_writel(host, val, KONA_SDHOST_CORECTRL);
> +}
Why not use msleep() instead of mdelay() here?
> +static int sdhci_bcm_kona_sd_card_emulate(struct sdhci_host *host, int
> insert)
> +{
> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_priv = sdhci_priv(host);
> + struct sdhci_bcm_kona_dev *kona_dev = pltfm_priv->priv;
> + u32 val;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /* this function can be called from various contexts including ISR */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
> + /* Ensure SD bus scanning to detect media change */
> + host->mmc->rescan_disable = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * Back-to-Back register write needs a delay of min 10uS.
> + * Back-to-Back writes to same register needs delay when SD bus clock
> + * is very low w.r.t AHB clock, mainly during boot-time and during card
> + * insert-removal.
> + * We keep 20uS
> + */
> + udelay(20);
> + val = sdhci_readl(host, KONA_SDHOST_CORESTAT);
Does the delay have to be done with interrupts disabled? That is not
particularly
nice.
I hope the hardware designers have been appropriately punished for the creating
such crap.
> +static void sdhci_bcm_kona_init_74_clocks(struct sdhci_host *host,
> + u8 power_mode)
> +{
> + if (power_mode == MMC_POWER_OFF)
> + return;
> + else
> + mdelay(10);
> +}
This requires at the minimum a comment about why the mdelay is needed.
Maybe we can change the set_ios function so we never need to call it
in atomic context.
> +static struct sdhci_bcm_kona_cfg * __init sdhci_bcm_kona_parse_dt(
> + struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct sdhci_bcm_kona_cfg *cfg;
> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> + u32 temp;
fold this function into probe()
> + if (!np)
> + return NULL;
impossible
> + cfg = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*cfg), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cfg) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Can't allocate platform cfg\n");
> + return NULL;
> + }
Not needed
> +static int __init sdhci_bcm_kona_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + const struct of_device_id *match;
constant, so not needed.
> + struct sdhci_bcm_kona_cfg *kona_cfg = NULL;
No need to initialize this.
> + const struct sdhci_pltfm_data *plat_data;
make it global.
> + struct sdhci_bcm_kona_dev *kona_dev = NULL;
No need to initialize this.
> + kona_dev = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*kona_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!kona_dev) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Can't allocate kona_dev\n");
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err_pltfm_free;
> + }
It is rather silly to have the base sdhci code allocate extra
memory for the platform drivers but then require an extra allocation.
Better change the sdhci_pltfm_init function to let you pass the extra
allocation size.
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Broadcom");
No person?
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
