On 23.02.2012 22:45, Andy Fleming wrote:
Yes, that's very annoying. Of course, Freescale *does* use fsl_esdhc, but for Power Architecture. I know that changes were submitted to support i.MX on fsl_esdhc, too, so I don't know why they've opted to use their own file in that tree. Hopefully they can be convinced to add support to mainline.
I'm not sure if they can be convinced :(
Anyway, what would be the preferred way to improve the xxx_esdhc in mainline U-Boot?
Both, the Freescale U-Boot [1] and Barebox [2] have a imx-esdhc.c. With this, the options I see for mainline U-Boot are
a) to port the Freescale/Barebox imx-esdhc.c changes/improvements into U-Boot's fsl_esdhc.c
or
b) create a new imx-esdhc.c in U-Boot, too.
?
Best regards
Dirk
[1] http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/tree/drivers/mmc?h=i...
[2] http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=barebox.git;a=tree;f=drivers/mci;h=5fc0778b7faf...
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Dirk Behme dirk.behme@de.bosch.com wrote:
With the two commits
http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009....
http://git.freescale.com/git/cgit.cgi/imx/uboot-imx.git/commit/?h=imx_v2009....
the old Freescale U-Boot has eMMC 4.4 support.
Our mainline drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c doesn't seem to support this.
Does anybody work on porting this to the mainline fsl_esdhc.c? Or any other pointers which might help?
Unfortunately, Freescale doesn't use the fsl_esdhc.c. They put their own imx_esdhc.c in parallel. This does make porting even harder :(
Many thanks and best regards