Hi Masami,
On 4/17/21 8:38 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
From: Jassi Brar jaswinder.singh@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar jaswinder.singh@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
drivers/mmc/Kconfig | 10 ++++++ drivers/mmc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/mmc/sdhci.c | 9 +++++ 4 files changed, 101 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/Kconfig b/drivers/mmc/Kconfig index f8ca52efb6..a9ae419e41 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/mmc/Kconfig @@ -549,6 +549,16 @@ config MMC_SDHCI_IPROC
If unsure, say N.+config F_SDH30_SDHCI
MMS_SDHCI_F_SDH30 or MMC_SDHCI_xxx.
- bool "SDHCI support for Fujitsu Semiconductor F_SDH30"
- depends on BLK && DM_MMC
- depends on MMC_SDHCI
- help
This selects the Secure Digital Host Controller Interface (SDHCI)Needed by some Fujitsu SoC for MMC / SD / SDIO support.If you have a controller with this interface, say Y or M here.If unsure, say N.config MMC_SDHCI_KONA bool "SDHCI support on Broadcom KONA platform" depends on MMC_SDHCI diff --git a/drivers/mmc/Makefile b/drivers/mmc/Makefile index 89d6af3db3..b48a76ba94 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/Makefile +++ b/drivers/mmc/Makefile @@ -76,3 +76,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MMC_UNIPHIER) += tmio-common.o uniphier-sd.o obj-$(CONFIG_RENESAS_SDHI) += tmio-common.o renesas-sdhi.o obj-$(CONFIG_MMC_BCM2835) += bcm2835_sdhost.o obj-$(CONFIG_MMC_MTK) += mtk-sd.o +obj-$(CONFIG_F_SDH30_SDHCI) += f_sdh30.o diff --git a/drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c b/drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..44c6521bfe --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/mmc/f_sdh30.c @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +/*
- Socionext F_SDH30 eMMC driver
- Copyright 2021 Linaro Ltd.
- Copyright 2021 Socionext, Inc.
- */
+#include <common.h> +#include <clk.h> +#include <dm.h> +#include <malloc.h> +#include <sdhci.h>
+struct f_sdh30_plat {
- struct mmc_config cfg;
- struct mmc mmc;
+};
+DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
+static int f_sdh30_probe(struct udevice *dev)
xxx_sdhci_probe().
+{
- struct mmc_uclass_priv *upriv = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev);
- struct f_sdh30_plat *plat = dev_get_plat(dev);
- struct sdhci_host *host = dev_get_priv(dev);
- int ret;
- ret = mmc_of_parse(dev, &plat->cfg);
- if (ret)
return ret;- host->mmc = &plat->mmc;
- host->mmc->dev = dev;
- host->mmc->priv = host;
- ret = sdhci_setup_cfg(&plat->cfg, host, 200000000, 400000);
- if (ret)
return ret;- upriv->mmc = host->mmc;
- mmc_set_clock(host->mmc, host->mmc->cfg->f_min, MMC_CLK_ENABLE);
- return sdhci_probe(dev);
+}
+static int f_sdh30_of_to_plat(struct udevice *dev) +{
- struct sdhci_host *host = dev_get_priv(dev);
- host->name = strdup(dev->name);
- host->ioaddr = dev_read_addr_ptr(dev);
- host->bus_width = dev_read_u32_default(dev, "bus-width", 4);
- host->index = dev_read_u32_default(dev, "index", 0);
- return 0;
+}
+static int f_sdh30_bind(struct udevice *dev) +{
- struct f_sdh30_plat *plat = dev_get_plat(dev);
- return sdhci_bind(dev, &plat->mmc, &plat->cfg);
+}
+static const struct udevice_id f_sdh30_mmc_ids[] = {
- { .compatible = "fujitsu,mb86s70-sdhci-3.0" },
- { }
+};
+U_BOOT_DRIVER(f_sdh30_drv) = {
- .name = "f_sdh30_sdhci",
- .id = UCLASS_MMC,
- .of_match = f_sdh30_mmc_ids,
- .of_to_plat = f_sdh30_of_to_plat,
- .ops = &sdhci_ops,
- .bind = f_sdh30_bind,
- .probe = f_sdh30_probe,
- .priv_auto = sizeof(struct sdhci_host),
- .plat_auto = sizeof(struct f_sdh30_plat),
+}; diff --git a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c index d9ab6a0a83..f038debc6c 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/sdhci.c @@ -708,6 +708,15 @@ static int sdhci_init(struct mmc *mmc)
sdhci_set_power(host, fls(mmc->cfg->voltages) - 1);
- if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_F_SDH30_SDHCI)) {
I don't want to add specific sdhci driver configuration in sdhci.c.
According to below comment and Specification, it has to delay 1ms. Can it be removed the above condition checking?
/** Reference to Part1 Physical Layer Simplified Specification* Ver 3.01, 6.4.1 Power Up* This delay must be at least 74 clock sizes, or 1 ms.*/udelay(1000);
I don't have any objection about this, If possible, it needs to calculate clock-cycle with real clock value in future.
Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung
- }
- if (host->ops && host->ops->get_cd) host->ops->get_cd(host);