On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsya...@samsung.com> wrote: > On 04/02/2012 12:00 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> >> Am 02.04.2012 09:20, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> >>> On 2 April 2012 07:24, Peter A. G. Crosthwaite >>> <peter.crosthwa...@petalogix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> device more for standard SD host controller interface (SDHCI). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter A. G. Crosthwaite<peter.crosthwa...@petalogix.com> >>> >>> >>> So how does this compare with Vincent Palatin's version? >>> (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/106767/) I'm guessing from >>> the copyright string that it's a modified version -- it would >>> be nice to say what the differences are. >> >> >> ...and what the differences to Samsung's version are. >> >> We should probably also cc Kevin on the topic. >> >> Andreas > > > It looks like this sdhc implements version 1 of standard SDHC specification, > while ours implements second version.
The implementation is not a fully 100% complete SDHCI (indeed very few QEMU models of anything are 100% true to the hardware), Id have to have a good look through the spec to give you what v2 features are and arent implemented, but this is supposed to have some level of v2 support. Second version should be backwards > compatible with first, Yes, I had to add somebackward compatibility to Vincents model around the ADMA stuff. I didn't want to submit it yet to see if vmstate > issue will be resolved or not. And also the whole QEMU SD emulation scheme > needs some refactoring which I've been busy with for a while now. The > biggest issues are that currently we cannot hot-insert SD card into virtual > board interface and we do not take any advantage of QOM (which is hard until > Paolo's and Andrea's patches land in master). > The one advantage of our SDHCI implementation is that it provides interface > to implement SoC-specific successors of standart SDHCI. I'll send these > patches today (even though I wanted to do a lot more refactoring with them), > Peter, could you please test them to find out if you can use them instead of > your SDHCI implementation? Yes i can but will they these patches be immediately mergable? My primary motivation for pushing this is to get my platform upstream and maintained. To that end, if major construction effort is required to get your SDHCI up to acceptable (which you have indicated in your comments) then can we push this anyway, and then when your refactoring happens, your model can replace this model. Regarding testing, we can also take the reverse approach, I can send you a binary package that you can use for regression testing your SDHCI implementation against our test vectors. > > -- > Mitsyanko Igor > ASWG, Moscow R&D center, Samsung Electronics > email: i.mitsya...@samsung.com
