On Wednesday, December 02, 2015 at 04:10:19 PM, Chin Liang See wrote: > On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 15:39 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 02, 2015 at 06:52:17 AM, Chin Liang See wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > OK, this is bad. Originally, if we didn't specify these in the > > > > DT, we > > > > would > > > > use the default values of 0x3 and 0x0 , but now we do the > > > > calibration. I wonder, > > > > do we care about DT ABI compatibility on the U-Boot level or not > > > > ? > > > > > > If the compatibility failed, it will still invoke the calibration > > > to > > > get the correct value. Just that its in the cost of boot time. > > > > Hopefully the calibration does it's job then. > > > > > At same time, I am rethinking another email thread on suggesting to > > > put > > > this into common dw_mmc code. Here are my proposal > > > > Having this in common code would make sense. > > > > > 1. Put back the correct default value for DT ABI compatiblity > > > 2. Adding a node to enable calibration. If node not exist, > > > calibration > > > will disabled as default. > > > > But "enable calibration" is not really a hardware property, so it > > shouldn't > > be in the DT. The DT is purely a hardware description and only the > > smplsel > > and drvsel fit into this, some "enable-calibration" does not. > > Sound reasonable. In this case, I can put this into KConfig where user > can configure this easily through menuconfig.
OK, this would be much better. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
