[U-Boot] fsl_esdhc.c: eMMC 4.4 support?
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
Dirk
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.
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
Dirk
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
Am 24/02/2012 08:20, schrieb Dirk Behme:
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?
Sorry, but support for SDHC *is* already in u-boot. The fsl_esdhc.c supports *both* architectures.
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
There are a lot of other drivers that are duplicated in the sources delivered by Freescale [1]. This is not a good reason to do the same in mainline. And Freescale's sources do not use the MMC framework we currently use, as fas as I remember.
a) to port the Freescale/Barebox imx-esdhc.c changes/improvements into U-Boot's fsl_esdhc.c
Yes. We have already profit in the past from changes done for PowerPC, that fixed the same issues for i.MX. Are you really sure that the missing feature (8 bit support) cannot be used on PowerPc, too ?
I am for maintaining one single driver and avoid as much as possible to duplicate code when it is not strictly needed.
or
b) create a new imx-esdhc.c in U-Boot, too.
No, don't do it. fsl_esdhc.c driver was modified in the past to add support for i.MX *after* Freescale published imx-esdh.c. And also at that time, the decision was to modify the driver for i.MX instead of adding a new one.
Best regards, Stefano Babic
participants (3)
-
Andy Fleming -
Dirk Behme -
stefano babic