public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

• * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
         [not found]           ` <56B21DDB.6050708@free.fr>
  @ 2016-11-18 10:37             ` Mason
    2016-11-18 10:49               ` Rameshwar Sahu
    0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
  From: Mason @ 2016-11-18 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
    To: linux-arm-kernel
  
  On 03/02/2016 16:33, Mason wrote:
  > On 03/02/2016 16:21, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
  >> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:58:24 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
  >>> On 3.2.2016 09:31, Mason wrote:
  >>>> On 03/02/2016 08:20, Michal Simek wrote:
  >>>>
  >>>>> On 3.2.2016 03:33, Shawn Lin wrote:
  >>>>>> + Michal, S?ren Brinkmann
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>> On 2016/2/2 17:49, Mason wrote:
  >>>>>>> Hello everyone,
  >>>>>>>
  >>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.txt states:
  >>>>>>>
  >>>>>>> Required Properties:
  >>>>>>>    - compatible: Compatibility string. Must be 'arasan,sdhci-8.9a' or
  >>>>>>>                  'arasan,sdhci-4.9a' or 'arasan,sdhci-5.1'
  >>>>>>>
  >>>>>>> What do 8.9a, 4.9a, and 5.1 refer to?
  >>>>>>>
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>> Good question.
  >>>>>>
  >>>>>> Michal told me that 8.9a and 4.9a came from Xilinx
  >>>>>> databook which define their available arasan controller to be version
  >>>>>> 4.9a and 8.9a.
  >>>>>
  >>>>> Our version is coming from here.
  >>>>> http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/user_guides/ug585-Zynq-7000-TRM.pdf
  >>>>> page 28
  >>>>>
  >>>>> Datasheets from 2012 and 2010 doesn't look too recent and I expect that
  >>>>> Arasan did a lot of work from that time that's why I am not surprised
  >>>>> that you are not able to see that versions.
  >>>>
  >>>> Hello Michal,
  >>>>
  >>>> I'm even more confused.
  >>>>
  >>>> Arasan's 2010-02-19 data sheet is titled
  >>>> SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller
  >>>>
  >>>> Page 28 of the Xilinx data sheet mentions
  >>>> SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller
  >>>> Version 8.9A_apr02nd_2010
  >>>>
  >>>> It does not make sense that Arasan would support SD3.0 in February,
  >>>> then go back to SD 2.0 in April.
  >>>>
  >>>> I do note eMMC4.4 vs MMC3.31 => perhaps these are two *different*
  >>>> IP blocks?
  >>>>
  >>>> Do your data sheets come with revision history?
  >>>
  >>> I don't have datasheet for this IP in my hand that's why I can't check it.
  >>> But I can't see any problem with it. Our zynq SoC supports SD2.0 and it
  >>> was requirement at that time. Bugs can happen. Arasan fixed it and
  >>> create new version.
  >>> At the same time can have 3.0 versions but vendor is just decide not to
  >>> use it for whatever reason.
  >>>
  >>> That's why timing of features and versions can upgrade any time and
  >>> unfortunately bugs happen.
  >>
  >> We have several Arasan data sheets here. The document names are:
  >> "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Userguide" and the revisions are 9.2a,
  >> 4.4a and 5.4a. I have the feeling that the document revisions have
  >> been mistaken as the IP revision. I cannot find any other indicator
  >> for the IP revision though. Does the IP have a way to discover its
  >> revision?
  > 
  > To summarize, it looks to me like
  > 4.9a and 8.9a are documentation revision numbers for this IP:
  > "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
  > 
  > and 5.1 seems to be the eMMC standard, so one of these IP:
  > http://arasan.com/products/emmc51/sd3-emmc-5-1-host/
  > http://arasan.com/products/emmc51/emmc-5-1-sd-4-1-host/
  > 
  > Whereas my board is using still another IP:
  > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
  > 
  > 
  > If that is correct, then I should be able to use the 8.9a
  > compatible string, and perhaps my hardware will work in
  > slightly degraded performance mode, from not using the
  > newest protocol gizmos available.
  
  Resurrecting this thread after a chat with Michal on IRC.
  
  The driver now supports a few more compatible strings.
  Tracing the history...
  
  Soren/Xilinx defined "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" in e3ec3a3d11ad
  They have the "SD2.0/SDIO2.0/MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller" version
  (8.9a might be a document revision number, dated 2010-04-02)
  
  Suman/APM added "arasan,sdhci-4.9a" in 308f3f8d8112
  @Suman, @Rameshwar: what specific IP block does your SoC embed?
  What does 4.9a refer to? The documentation revision number?
  
  Shawn/Rockchip added "arasan,sdhci-5.1" in da795ec26e25
  This seems to be for an *actual* eMMC 5.1 version
  (instead of a documentation version) as mentioned in
  the commit message.
  
  Douglas added "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1"
  and made several other improvements.
  
  I have reached out to Arasan support. Hopefully they can also
  help clear up the confusion, assuming they care about the
  Linux driver.
  
  Regards.
  
  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

• • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
      2016-11-18 10:37             ` arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding Mason
    @ 2016-11-18 10:49               ` Rameshwar Sahu
      2016-11-18 12:42                 ` Mason
      0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
    From: Rameshwar Sahu @ 2016-11-18 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
      To: linux-arm-kernel
    
    Hi Mason,
    
    
    Suman/APM added "arasan,sdhci-4.9a" in 308f3f8d8112
    @Suman, @Rameshwar: what specific IP block does your SoC embed?
    What does 4.9a refer to? The documentation revision number?
    
    We have Arasan SD3.0/ SDIO3.0/ eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller IP
    embedded in our SoC and 4.9a is documentation revision number which
    was given by arasan.
    FYI this documentation date was May, 2012.
    
    Thanks,
    Ram
    
    On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Mason <slash.tmp@free•fr> wrote:
    > On 03/02/2016 16:33, Mason wrote:
    >> On 03/02/2016 16:21, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:58:24 +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
    >>>> On 3.2.2016 09:31, Mason wrote:
    >>>>> On 03/02/2016 08:20, Michal Simek wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 3.2.2016 03:33, Shawn Lin wrote:
    >>>>>>> + Michal, S?ren Brinkmann
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2016/2/2 17:49, Mason wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/arasan,sdhci.txt states:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Required Properties:
    >>>>>>>>    - compatible: Compatibility string. Must be 'arasan,sdhci-8.9a' or
    >>>>>>>>                  'arasan,sdhci-4.9a' or 'arasan,sdhci-5.1'
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> What do 8.9a, 4.9a, and 5.1 refer to?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Good question.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Michal told me that 8.9a and 4.9a came from Xilinx
    >>>>>>> databook which define their available arasan controller to be version
    >>>>>>> 4.9a and 8.9a.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Our version is coming from here.
    >>>>>> http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/user_guides/ug585-Zynq-7000-TRM.pdf
    >>>>>> page 28
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Datasheets from 2012 and 2010 doesn't look too recent and I expect that
    >>>>>> Arasan did a lot of work from that time that's why I am not surprised
    >>>>>> that you are not able to see that versions.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hello Michal,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm even more confused.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Arasan's 2010-02-19 data sheet is titled
    >>>>> SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Page 28 of the Xilinx data sheet mentions
    >>>>> SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller
    >>>>> Version 8.9A_apr02nd_2010
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It does not make sense that Arasan would support SD3.0 in February,
    >>>>> then go back to SD 2.0 in April.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I do note eMMC4.4 vs MMC3.31 => perhaps these are two *different*
    >>>>> IP blocks?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do your data sheets come with revision history?
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't have datasheet for this IP in my hand that's why I can't check it.
    >>>> But I can't see any problem with it. Our zynq SoC supports SD2.0 and it
    >>>> was requirement at that time. Bugs can happen. Arasan fixed it and
    >>>> create new version.
    >>>> At the same time can have 3.0 versions but vendor is just decide not to
    >>>> use it for whatever reason.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's why timing of features and versions can upgrade any time and
    >>>> unfortunately bugs happen.
    >>>
    >>> We have several Arasan data sheets here. The document names are:
    >>> "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Userguide" and the revisions are 9.2a,
    >>> 4.4a and 5.4a. I have the feeling that the document revisions have
    >>> been mistaken as the IP revision. I cannot find any other indicator
    >>> for the IP revision though. Does the IP have a way to discover its
    >>> revision?
    >>
    >> To summarize, it looks to me like
    >> 4.9a and 8.9a are documentation revision numbers for this IP:
    >> "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
    >>
    >> and 5.1 seems to be the eMMC standard, so one of these IP:
    >> http://arasan.com/products/emmc51/sd3-emmc-5-1-host/
    >> http://arasan.com/products/emmc51/emmc-5-1-sd-4-1-host/
    >>
    >> Whereas my board is using still another IP:
    >> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
    >>
    >>
    >> If that is correct, then I should be able to use the 8.9a
    >> compatible string, and perhaps my hardware will work in
    >> slightly degraded performance mode, from not using the
    >> newest protocol gizmos available.
    >
    > Resurrecting this thread after a chat with Michal on IRC.
    >
    > The driver now supports a few more compatible strings.
    > Tracing the history...
    >
    > Soren/Xilinx defined "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" in e3ec3a3d11ad
    > They have the "SD2.0/SDIO2.0/MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller" version
    > (8.9a might be a document revision number, dated 2010-04-02)
    >
    > Suman/APM added "arasan,sdhci-4.9a" in 308f3f8d8112
    > @Suman, @Rameshwar: what specific IP block does your SoC embed?
    > What does 4.9a refer to? The documentation revision number?
    >
    > Shawn/Rockchip added "arasan,sdhci-5.1" in da795ec26e25
    > This seems to be for an *actual* eMMC 5.1 version
    > (instead of a documentation version) as mentioned in
    > the commit message.
    >
    > Douglas added "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1"
    > and made several other improvements.
    >
    > I have reached out to Arasan support. Hopefully they can also
    > help clear up the confusion, assuming they care about the
    > Linux driver.
    >
    > Regards.
    >
    
    ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

  • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
        2016-11-18 10:49               ` Rameshwar Sahu
      @ 2016-11-18 12:42                 ` Mason
        2016-11-18 13:22                   ` Michal Simek
        0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
      From: Mason @ 2016-11-18 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
        To: linux-arm-kernel
      
      On 18/11/2016 11:49, Rameshwar Sahu wrote:
      
      > Mason wrote:
      >
      >> Suman/APM added "arasan,sdhci-4.9a" in 308f3f8d8112
      >> @Suman, @Rameshwar: what specific IP block does your SoC embed?
      >> What does 4.9a refer to? The documentation revision number?
      > 
      > We have Arasan SD3.0/ SDIO3.0/ eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller IP
      > embedded in our SoC and 4.9a is documentation revision number which
      > was given by Arasan.
      > FYI this documentation date was May, 2012.
      
      Hello Ram,
      
      Thanks for the information.
      
        Xilinx is using "SD2.0/SDIO2.0/MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
           APM is using "SD3.0/SDIO3.0/eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
         Sigma is using "SD3.0/SDIO3.0/eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
      Rockchip is using ? (Shawn could you specify exactly which IP you use?)
      
      And it looks like Arasan is using different revision numbers for
      every documentation they have.
      
      The "SD3.0/SDIO3.0/eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller" doc I have is
      at rev number 6.0, dated 2010-02-19.
      
      Regards.
      
      ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

    • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
          2016-11-18 12:42                 ` Mason
        @ 2016-11-18 13:22                   ` Michal Simek
          2016-11-28 15:44                     ` Mason
          0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
        From: Michal Simek @ 2016-11-18 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
          To: linux-arm-kernel
        
        On 18.11.2016 13:42, Mason wrote:
        > On 18/11/2016 11:49, Rameshwar Sahu wrote:
        > 
        >> Mason wrote:
        >>
        >>> Suman/APM added "arasan,sdhci-4.9a" in 308f3f8d8112
        >>> @Suman, @Rameshwar: what specific IP block does your SoC embed?
        >>> What does 4.9a refer to? The documentation revision number?
        >>
        >> We have Arasan SD3.0/ SDIO3.0/ eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller IP
        >> embedded in our SoC and 4.9a is documentation revision number which
        >> was given by Arasan.
        >> FYI this documentation date was May, 2012.
        > 
        > Hello Ram,
        > 
        > Thanks for the information.
        > 
        >   Xilinx is using "SD2.0/SDIO2.0/MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
        
        in Xilinx Zynq device
        
        and
        Xilinx ZynqMP device is using
        "SD3.0/SDIO3.0/eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
        
        Thanks,
        Michal
        
        ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

      • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
            2016-11-18 13:22                   ` Michal Simek
          @ 2016-11-28 15:44                     ` Mason
            2016-11-28 16:15                       ` Arnd Bergmann
                                                   ` (2 more replies)
            0 siblings, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread
          From: Mason @ 2016-11-28 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
            To: linux-arm-kernel
          
          Hello,
          
          @Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
          which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
          
          Based on the feedback I received, here is an updated list of
          compatible strings and controller versions dealt with by the
          drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c code.
          
          
          Xilinx Zynq:
          "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
          "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
          NB: 8.9a is the documentation revision (dated 2011-10-19)
          subsequent tweaks labeled 9.0a, 9.1a, 9.2a
          
          Xilinx ZynqMP:
          "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
          "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
          NB: using the same compatible string as Zynq
          
          Sigma SMP87xx
          "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
          no compatible string yet, platform-specific init required
          
          APM:
          "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
          "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
          NB: 4.9a appears to be the documentation revision
          no functional diff with "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
          
          Rockchip
          Exact IP unknown, waiting for Shawn's answer
          "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
          NB: 5.1 appears to refer to the eMMC standard supported
          
          
          On a final note, there are many variations of the Arasan IP.
          I've tracked down at least the following:
          
          SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
          SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_OCP_Host_Controller.pdf
          SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
          SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
          SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
          SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
          SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller.pdf
          
          It seems to me the compatible string should specify
          the SD/SDIO version AND the eMMC version, since it
          seems many combinations are allowed, e.g. eMMC 4.51
          has two possible SD versions.
          
          What do you think?
          
          Regards.
          
          ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

        • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
              2016-11-28 15:44                     ` Mason
            @ 2016-11-28 16:15                       ` Arnd Bergmann
              2016-11-28 16:52                         ` Mason
              2016-11-28 16:23                       ` Sebastian Frias
              2016-12-01  4:09                       ` Shawn Lin
              2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
            From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-11-28 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
              To: linux-arm-kernel
            
            On Monday, November 28, 2016 4:44:39 PM CET Mason wrote:
            > Hello,
            > 
            > @Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
            > which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
            > 
            > Based on the feedback I received, here is an updated list of
            > compatible strings and controller versions dealt with by the
            > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c code.
            > 
            > 
            > Xilinx Zynq:
            > "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > NB: 8.9a is the documentation revision (dated 2011-10-19)
            > subsequent tweaks labeled 9.0a, 9.1a, 9.2a
            > 
            > Xilinx ZynqMP:
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > NB: using the same compatible string as Zynq
            > 
            > Sigma SMP87xx
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
            > no compatible string yet, platform-specific init required
            > 
            > APM:
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
            > NB: 4.9a appears to be the documentation revision
            > no functional diff with "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > 
            > Rockchip
            > Exact IP unknown, waiting for Shawn's answer
            > "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
            > NB: 5.1 appears to refer to the eMMC standard supported
            > 
            > 
            > On a final note, there are many variations of the Arasan IP.
            > I've tracked down at least the following:
            > 
            > SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_OCP_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller.pdf
            > 
            > It seems to me the compatible string should specify
            > the SD/SDIO version AND the eMMC version, since it
            > seems many combinations are allowed, e.g. eMMC 4.51
            > has two possible SD versions.
            > 
            > What do you think?
            
            It seems wrong to have the eMMC or SD version in the compatible
            string.  Is that the only difference between the documents you
            found? Normally there should be a version of IP block itself,
            besides the supported protocol.
            
            	Arnd
            
            ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

          • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
                2016-11-28 16:15                       ` Arnd Bergmann
              @ 2016-11-28 16:52                         ` Mason
                2016-11-29  7:29                           ` Rameshwar Sahu
                0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
              From: Mason @ 2016-11-28 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
                To: linux-arm-kernel
              
              On 28/11/2016 17:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
              
              > On Monday, November 28, 2016 4:44:39 PM CET Mason wrote:
              >
              >> Hello,
              >>
              >> @Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
              >> which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
              >>
              >> Based on the feedback I received, here is an updated list of
              >> compatible strings and controller versions dealt with by the
              >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c code.
              >>
              >>
              >> Xilinx Zynq:
              >> "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
              >> "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
              >> NB: 8.9a is the documentation revision (dated 2011-10-19)
              >> subsequent tweaks labeled 9.0a, 9.1a, 9.2a
              >>
              >> Xilinx ZynqMP:
              >> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
              >> "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
              >> NB: using the same compatible string as Zynq
              >>
              >> Sigma SMP87xx
              >> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
              >> no compatible string yet, platform-specific init required
              >>
              >> APM:
              >> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
              >> "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
              >> NB: 4.9a appears to be the documentation revision
              >> no functional diff with "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
              >>
              >> Rockchip
              >> Exact IP unknown, waiting for Shawn's answer
              >> "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
              >> NB: 5.1 appears to refer to the eMMC standard supported
              >>
              >>
              >> On a final note, there are many variations of the Arasan IP.
              >> I've tracked down at least the following:
              >>
              >> SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
              >> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_OCP_Host_Controller.pdf
              >> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
              >> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
              >> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
              >> SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
              >> SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller.pdf
              >>
              >> It seems to me the compatible string should specify
              >> the SD/SDIO version AND the eMMC version, since it
              >> seems many combinations are allowed, e.g. eMMC 4.51
              >> has two possible SD versions.
              >>
              >> What do you think?
              > 
              > It seems wrong to have the eMMC or SD version in the compatible
              > string.  Is that the only difference between the documents you
              > found? Normally there should be a version of IP block itself,
              > besides the supported protocol.
              
              But that is exactly the problem :-)
              
              Nowhere in the documentation do they specify an "IP version".
              Some documents do provide a revision number, but that's just
              a *documentation* revision number, e.g.
              
              changes in version 3.6 : fix typos
              changes in version 9.1a : update company logo
              
              That's why Xilinx used "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" and APM used
              "arasan,sdhci-4.9a". These are documentation revisions.
              In my opinion, that information is mostly worthless.
              
              
              Looking more closely at SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
              (User Guide, which has more info than Datasheet) I see this:
              
              Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h0002 to 16'h7501
              Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h8301 to 16'h8401
              Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h8401 to 16'h8501
              Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9502
              Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9602
              Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9902
              
              Host controller version register (offset 0FEh)
              
              Vendor Version Number 15:8
              HwInit=0x99
              This status is reserved for the vendor version number.
              The HD should not use this status.
              
              Specification Version Number 7:0
              HwInit=0x02
              This status indicates the Host Controller Spec. Version.
              The upper and lower 4-bits indicate the version.
              Description
              00 - SD Host Specification version 1.0
              01 - SD Host Specification version 2.00
              including only the feature of the Test Register
              02 - SD Host Specification Version 3.00
              others - Reserved
              
              I'm not sure what this "Vendor Version Number" specifies, nor if is
              guaranteed to be unique across controllers.
              
              In SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller_UserGuide.pdf,
              they write "The Vendor Version Number is set to 0x10 (1.0)"
              
              I don't have a UserGuide for "arasan,sdhci-5.1".
              
              Regards.
              
              ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

            • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
                  2016-11-28 16:52                         ` Mason
                @ 2016-11-29  7:29                           ` Rameshwar Sahu
                  2016-11-30 10:51                             ` Sebastian Frias
                  0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
                From: Rameshwar Sahu @ 2016-11-29  7:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
                  To: linux-arm-kernel
                
                Hi Mason,
                
                Nowhere in the documentation do they specify an "IP version".
                Some documents do provide a revision number, but that's just
                a *documentation* revision number, e.g.
                
                changes in version 3.6 : fix typos
                changes in version 9.1a : update company logo
                
                That's why Xilinx used "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" and APM used
                "arasan,sdhci-4.9a". These are documentation revisions.
                In my opinion, that information is mostly worthless.
                
                Arasan SD/SDIO/eMMC IP has a register which tells about the SD
                specification version and  Vendor version number
                Reg Name: Host controller version register (offset 0FEh)
                bit [15:8] is for vendor version number,
                But, I have seen that Arasaan vendor version number is same as
                document revision number.
                
                On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Mason <slash.tmp@free•fr> wrote:
                > On 28/11/2016 17:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
                >
                >> On Monday, November 28, 2016 4:44:39 PM CET Mason wrote:
                >>
                >>> Hello,
                >>>
                >>> @Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
                >>> which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
                >>>
                >>> Based on the feedback I received, here is an updated list of
                >>> compatible strings and controller versions dealt with by the
                >>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c code.
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> Xilinx Zynq:
                >>> "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
                >>> "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
                >>> NB: 8.9a is the documentation revision (dated 2011-10-19)
                >>> subsequent tweaks labeled 9.0a, 9.1a, 9.2a
                >>>
                >>> Xilinx ZynqMP:
                >>> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
                >>> "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
                >>> NB: using the same compatible string as Zynq
                >>>
                >>> Sigma SMP87xx
                >>> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
                >>> no compatible string yet, platform-specific init required
                >>>
                >>> APM:
                >>> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
                >>> "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
                >>> NB: 4.9a appears to be the documentation revision
                >>> no functional diff with "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
                >>>
                >>> Rockchip
                >>> Exact IP unknown, waiting for Shawn's answer
                >>> "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
                >>> NB: 5.1 appears to refer to the eMMC standard supported
                >>>
                >>>
                >>> On a final note, there are many variations of the Arasan IP.
                >>> I've tracked down at least the following:
                >>>
                >>> SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
                >>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_OCP_Host_Controller.pdf
                >>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
                >>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
                >>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
                >>> SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
                >>> SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller.pdf
                >>>
                >>> It seems to me the compatible string should specify
                >>> the SD/SDIO version AND the eMMC version, since it
                >>> seems many combinations are allowed, e.g. eMMC 4.51
                >>> has two possible SD versions.
                >>>
                >>> What do you think?
                >>
                >> It seems wrong to have the eMMC or SD version in the compatible
                >> string.  Is that the only difference between the documents you
                >> found? Normally there should be a version of IP block itself,
                >> besides the supported protocol.
                >
                > But that is exactly the problem :-)
                >
                > Nowhere in the documentation do they specify an "IP version".
                > Some documents do provide a revision number, but that's just
                > a *documentation* revision number, e.g.
                >
                > changes in version 3.6 : fix typos
                > changes in version 9.1a : update company logo
                >
                > That's why Xilinx used "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" and APM used
                > "arasan,sdhci-4.9a". These are documentation revisions.
                > In my opinion, that information is mostly worthless.
                >
                >
                > Looking more closely at SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
                > (User Guide, which has more info than Datasheet) I see this:
                >
                > Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h0002 to 16'h7501
                > Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h8301 to 16'h8401
                > Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h8401 to 16'h8501
                > Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9502
                > Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9602
                > Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9902
                >
                > Host controller version register (offset 0FEh)
                >
                > Vendor Version Number 15:8
                > HwInit=0x99
                > This status is reserved for the vendor version number.
                > The HD should not use this status.
                >
                > Specification Version Number 7:0
                > HwInit=0x02
                > This status indicates the Host Controller Spec. Version.
                > The upper and lower 4-bits indicate the version.
                > Description
                > 00 - SD Host Specification version 1.0
                > 01 - SD Host Specification version 2.00
                > including only the feature of the Test Register
                > 02 - SD Host Specification Version 3.00
                > others - Reserved
                >
                > I'm not sure what this "Vendor Version Number" specifies, nor if is
                > guaranteed to be unique across controllers.
                >
                > In SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller_UserGuide.pdf,
                > they write "The Vendor Version Number is set to 0x10 (1.0)"
                >
                > I don't have a UserGuide for "arasan,sdhci-5.1".
                >
                > Regards.
                >
                
                ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

              • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
                    2016-11-29  7:29                           ` Rameshwar Sahu
                  @ 2016-11-30 10:51                             ` Sebastian Frias
                    2016-11-30 13:17                               ` Michal Simek
                    0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
                  From: Sebastian Frias @ 2016-11-30 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
                    To: linux-arm-kernel
                  
                  On 29/11/16 08:29, Rameshwar Sahu wrote:
                  > Hi Mason,
                  > 
                  > Nowhere in the documentation do they specify an "IP version".
                  > Some documents do provide a revision number, but that's just
                  > a *documentation* revision number, e.g.
                  > 
                  > changes in version 3.6 : fix typos
                  > changes in version 9.1a : update company logo
                  > 
                  > That's why Xilinx used "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" and APM used
                  > "arasan,sdhci-4.9a". These are documentation revisions.
                  > In my opinion, that information is mostly worthless.
                  > 
                  
                  For the record, the important information conveyed by Rameshwar's
                  email is the following:
                  
                  Arasan SD/SDIO/eMMC IP has a register which tells about the SD
                  specification version and  Vendor version number
                  Reg Name: Host controller version register (offset 0FEh)
                  bit [15:8] is for vendor version number,
                  But, I have seen that Arasaan vendor version number is same as
                  document revision number.
                  
                  (At first I had ignored the email because it repeated Mason's email
                  without quoting, but then I realised it contained some information)
                  
                  
                  
                  > 
                  > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Mason <slash.tmp@free•fr> wrote:
                  >> On 28/11/2016 17:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
                  >>
                  >>> On Monday, November 28, 2016 4:44:39 PM CET Mason wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>> Hello,
                  >>>>
                  >>>> @Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
                  >>>> which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
                  >>>>
                  >>>> Based on the feedback I received, here is an updated list of
                  >>>> compatible strings and controller versions dealt with by the
                  >>>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c code.
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>> Xilinx Zynq:
                  >>>> "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
                  >>>> "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
                  >>>> NB: 8.9a is the documentation revision (dated 2011-10-19)
                  >>>> subsequent tweaks labeled 9.0a, 9.1a, 9.2a
                  >>>>
                  >>>> Xilinx ZynqMP:
                  >>>> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
                  >>>> "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
                  >>>> NB: using the same compatible string as Zynq
                  >>>>
                  >>>> Sigma SMP87xx
                  >>>> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
                  >>>> no compatible string yet, platform-specific init required
                  >>>>
                  >>>> APM:
                  >>>> "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
                  >>>> "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
                  >>>> NB: 4.9a appears to be the documentation revision
                  >>>> no functional diff with "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
                  >>>>
                  >>>> Rockchip
                  >>>> Exact IP unknown, waiting for Shawn's answer
                  >>>> "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
                  >>>> NB: 5.1 appears to refer to the eMMC standard supported
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>> On a final note, there are many variations of the Arasan IP.
                  >>>> I've tracked down at least the following:
                  >>>>
                  >>>> SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
                  >>>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_OCP_Host_Controller.pdf
                  >>>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
                  >>>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
                  >>>> SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
                  >>>> SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
                  >>>> SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller.pdf
                  >>>>
                  >>>> It seems to me the compatible string should specify
                  >>>> the SD/SDIO version AND the eMMC version, since it
                  >>>> seems many combinations are allowed, e.g. eMMC 4.51
                  >>>> has two possible SD versions.
                  >>>>
                  >>>> What do you think?
                  >>>
                  >>> It seems wrong to have the eMMC or SD version in the compatible
                  >>> string.  Is that the only difference between the documents you
                  >>> found? Normally there should be a version of IP block itself,
                  >>> besides the supported protocol.
                  >>
                  >> But that is exactly the problem :-)
                  >>
                  >> Nowhere in the documentation do they specify an "IP version".
                  >> Some documents do provide a revision number, but that's just
                  >> a *documentation* revision number, e.g.
                  >>
                  >> changes in version 3.6 : fix typos
                  >> changes in version 9.1a : update company logo
                  >>
                  >> That's why Xilinx used "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" and APM used
                  >> "arasan,sdhci-4.9a". These are documentation revisions.
                  >> In my opinion, that information is mostly worthless.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Looking more closely at SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
                  >> (User Guide, which has more info than Datasheet) I see this:
                  >>
                  >> Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h0002 to 16'h7501
                  >> Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h8301 to 16'h8401
                  >> Changed Host Controller Version Register value from 16'h8401 to 16'h8501
                  >> Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9502
                  >> Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9602
                  >> Changed Host Controller Version Register to 16'h9902
                  >>
                  >> Host controller version register (offset 0FEh)
                  >>
                  >> Vendor Version Number 15:8
                  >> HwInit=0x99
                  >> This status is reserved for the vendor version number.
                  >> The HD should not use this status.
                  >>
                  >> Specification Version Number 7:0
                  >> HwInit=0x02
                  >> This status indicates the Host Controller Spec. Version.
                  >> The upper and lower 4-bits indicate the version.
                  >> Description
                  >> 00 - SD Host Specification version 1.0
                  >> 01 - SD Host Specification version 2.00
                  >> including only the feature of the Test Register
                  >> 02 - SD Host Specification Version 3.00
                  >> others - Reserved
                  >>
                  >> I'm not sure what this "Vendor Version Number" specifies, nor if is
                  >> guaranteed to be unique across controllers.
                  >>
                  >> In SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller_UserGuide.pdf,
                  >> they write "The Vendor Version Number is set to 0x10 (1.0)"
                  >>
                  >> I don't have a UserGuide for "arasan,sdhci-5.1".
                  >>
                  >> Regards.
                  >>
                  
                  ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

                • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
                      2016-11-30 10:51                             ` Sebastian Frias
                    @ 2016-11-30 13:17                               ` Michal Simek
                      0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
                    From: Michal Simek @ 2016-11-30 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
                      To: linux-arm-kernel
                    
                    On 30.11.2016 11:51, Sebastian Frias wrote:
                    > On 29/11/16 08:29, Rameshwar Sahu wrote:
                    >> Hi Mason,
                    >>
                    >> Nowhere in the documentation do they specify an "IP version".
                    >> Some documents do provide a revision number, but that's just
                    >> a *documentation* revision number, e.g.
                    >>
                    >> changes in version 3.6 : fix typos
                    >> changes in version 9.1a : update company logo
                    >>
                    >> That's why Xilinx used "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" and APM used
                    >> "arasan,sdhci-4.9a". These are documentation revisions.
                    >> In my opinion, that information is mostly worthless.
                    >>
                    > 
                    > For the record, the important information conveyed by Rameshwar's
                    > email is the following:
                    > 
                    > Arasan SD/SDIO/eMMC IP has a register which tells about the SD
                    > specification version and  Vendor version number
                    > Reg Name: Host controller version register (offset 0FEh)
                    > bit [15:8] is for vendor version number,
                    > But, I have seen that Arasaan vendor version number is same as
                    > document revision number.
                    > 
                    > (At first I had ignored the email because it repeated Mason's email
                    > without quoting, but then I realised it contained some information)
                    > 
                    > 
                    
                    Values on real HW.
                    
                    ZynqMP device
                    xsdb% mrd 0xFF1600FC
                    FF1600FC:   10020000
                    
                    Zynq device:
                    xsdb% mrd 0xE01000FC
                    E01000FC:   89010000
                    
                    Based on docs I have access to.
                    
                    Specification_Version_Number (bits:23:16)
                    00 - SD Host Specification version 1.0
                    01 - SD Host Specification version 2.00 including only the feature of
                    the Test Register
                    02 - SD Host Specification version 3.00
                    
                    
                    Vendor_Version_Number 	31:24
                    
                    with 32bit access from FC
                    
                    Thanks,
                    Michal
                    
                    ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

          • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
              2016-11-28 15:44                     ` Mason
              2016-11-28 16:15                       ` Arnd Bergmann
            @ 2016-11-28 16:23                       ` Sebastian Frias
              2016-12-01  4:09                       ` Shawn Lin
              2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
            From: Sebastian Frias @ 2016-11-28 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
              To: linux-arm-kernel
            
            On 28/11/16 16:44, Mason wrote:
            > Hello,
            > 
            > @Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
            > which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
            > 
            > Based on the feedback I received, here is an updated list of
            > compatible strings and controller versions dealt with by the
            > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c code.
            > 
            > 
            > Xilinx Zynq:
            > "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > NB: 8.9a is the documentation revision (dated 2011-10-19)
            > subsequent tweaks labeled 9.0a, 9.1a, 9.2a
            > 
            > Xilinx ZynqMP:
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > NB: using the same compatible string as Zynq
            > 
            > Sigma SMP87xx
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
            > no compatible string yet, platform-specific init required
            > 
            > APM:
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
            > NB: 4.9a appears to be the documentation revision
            > no functional diff with "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > 
            > Rockchip
            > Exact IP unknown, waiting for Shawn's answer
            > "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
            > NB: 5.1 appears to refer to the eMMC standard supported
            > 
            > 
            > On a final note, there are many variations of the Arasan IP.
            > I've tracked down at least the following:
            > 
            > SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_OCP_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller.pdf
            > 
            > It seems to me the compatible string should specify
            > the SD/SDIO version AND the eMMC version, since it
            > seems many combinations are allowed, e.g. eMMC 4.51
            > has two possible SD versions.
            > 
            > What do you think?
            
            
            I'm trying to picture this. Imagine:
            a) SoC XYZ used two versions:
              - SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
              - SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
            b) That the compatible suffixes were defined as "sd30-emmc44" and
            "sd30-emmc45" respectively
            c) That the chip-specific init is the same for both.
            
            What would be the recommended way of dealing with that at DT/driver level?
            
            1) XYZ's DT1: compatible = "arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc44", "XYZ,sdhci"
                     DT2: compatible = "arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc45", "XYZ,sdhci"
               driver: match "XYZ,sdhci" for chip-specific init, and then leaves
            "arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc44" or arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc45" for generic part
            
            2) XYZ's DT1: compatible = "XYZ,arasan-sdhci-sd30-emmc44"
                     DT2: compatible = "XYZ,arasan-sdhci-sd30-emmc45"
               driver: match "XYZ,arasan-sdhci-sd30-emmc44" or "XYZ,arasan-sdhci-sd30-emmc45"
            for chip-specific init and generic parts
            
            3) XYZ's DT1: compatible = "arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc44"
                     DT2: compatible = "arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc45"
               driver: match "arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc44" or "arasan,sdhci-sd30-emmc45" for
            generic part; chip-specific init done somewhere else (bootloader?)
            
            4) something else?
            
            How would those solutions be affected if condition c) was changed to
            "chip-specific init is different for both"?
            
            
            > 
            > Regards.
            > 
            
            ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

          • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
              2016-11-28 15:44                     ` Mason
              2016-11-28 16:15                       ` Arnd Bergmann
              2016-11-28 16:23                       ` Sebastian Frias
            @ 2016-12-01  4:09                       ` Shawn Lin
              2016-12-01 12:29                         ` Mason
              2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
            From: Shawn Lin @ 2016-12-01  4:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
              To: linux-arm-kernel
            
            On 2016/11/28 23:44, Mason wrote:
            > Hello,
            >
            > @Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
            > which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
            >
            
             From the Host Controller version register (0xfe)
            bit[7:0]: 0x2 : specification version number is 3.00
            bit[15:8]: 0x10: Vendor version number is 1.0
            
            
            Command Queueing version register (0x200)
            bit[11:8]: 0x5  eMMC Major version number
            bit[7:4]: 0x1 eMMC manor version number
            bit[3:0]: 0x0 eMMC version suffix
            
            User guide "eMMC 5.1/SD3.0/SDIO3.0 Host Controller"
            Revision number: 1.14
            Released on Dec. 2014
            
            > Based on the feedback I received, here is an updated list of
            > compatible strings and controller versions dealt with by the
            > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c code.
            >
            >
            > Xilinx Zynq:
            > "SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 / MMC3.31 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > NB: 8.9a is the documentation revision (dated 2011-10-19)
            > subsequent tweaks labeled 9.0a, 9.1a, 9.2a
            >
            > Xilinx ZynqMP:
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            > NB: using the same compatible string as Zynq
            >
            > Sigma SMP87xx
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4 AHB Host Controller"
            > no compatible string yet, platform-specific init required
            >
            > APM:
            > "SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41 AHB Host Controller"
            > "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
            > NB: 4.9a appears to be the documentation revision
            > no functional diff with "arasan,sdhci-8.9a"
            >
            > Rockchip
            > Exact IP unknown, waiting for Shawn's answer
            > "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
            > NB: 5.1 appears to refer to the eMMC standard supported
            >
            >
            > On a final note, there are many variations of the Arasan IP.
            > I've tracked down at least the following:
            >
            > SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_OCP_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__AHB_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller.pdf
            > SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller.pdf
            >
            > It seems to me the compatible string should specify
            > the SD/SDIO version AND the eMMC version, since it
            > seems many combinations are allowed, e.g. eMMC 4.51
            > has two possible SD versions.
            >
            > What do you think?
            >
            > Regards.
            >
            > --
            > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
            > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
            > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
            >
            
            
            -- 
            Best Regards
            Shawn Lin
            
            ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

          • • * arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding
                2016-12-01  4:09                       ` Shawn Lin
              @ 2016-12-01 12:29                         ` Mason
                0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
              From: Mason @ 2016-12-01 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
                To: linux-arm-kernel
              
              On 01/12/2016 05:09, Shawn Lin wrote:
              
              > On 2016/11/28 23:44, Mason wrote:
              >
              >> Shawn Lin, could you take a look below and tell me exactly
              >> which IP core(s) Rockchip is using in its SoCs?
              > 
              > From the Host Controller version register (0xfe)
              > bit[7:0]: 0x2 : specification version number is 3.00
              > bit[15:8]: 0x10: Vendor version number is 1.0
              > 
              > Command Queueing version register (0x200)
              > bit[11:8]: 0x5  eMMC Major version number
              > bit[7:4]: 0x1 eMMC manor version number
              > bit[3:0]: 0x0 eMMC version suffix
              > 
              > User guide "eMMC 5.1/SD3.0/SDIO3.0 Host Controller"
              > Revision number: 1.14
              > Released on Dec. 2014
              
              Wow! Yet another HW revision I wasn't aware of :-)
              
              For the record, I think the 0x200 register was introduced fairly
              recently, as it's not documented in any of the user guides I have
              access to.
              
              
              To summarize the situation, Arasan has made (at least) the
              following versions of the HW block:
              
                SD_2.0_SDIO_2.0__MMC_3.31_Host_Controller
                SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.4__Host_Controller
                SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.41_Host_Controller
                SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.5__Host_Controller
                SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller
                SD_3.0_SDIO_3.0_eMMC_5.1__Host Controller
                SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_4.51_Host_Controller
                SD_4.1_SDIO_4.1_eMMC_5.1__Host_Controller
              
              
              Xilinx = "arasan,sdhci-8.9a" compat string
              SD2.0 / SDIO2.0 /  MMC3.31 (in Zynq)
              SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.51 (in ZynqMP)
              Vendor version 0x89 (Zynq, from 8.9a) and 0x10 (ZynqMP)
              
              Sigma = no compat string yet
              SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.4  (in SMP87xx)
              Vendor version 0x99 (not related to document revision)
              
              APM = "arasan,sdhci-4.9a"
              SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC4.41
              Vendor version unknown
              
              Rockchip = "arasan,sdhci-5.1"
              SD3.0 / SDIO3.0 / eMMC 5.1
              Vendor version 0x10
              
              Conclusion, it doesn't look like the "Vendor version" field
              contains dependable information, considering the duplicate
              0x10 in different HW revisions.
              
              Regards.
              
              ^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-01 12:29 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <56B07BA5.4060407@free.fr>
     [not found] ` <56B166F1.5080605@rock-chips.com>
     [not found]   ` <56B1AA44.1010108@xilinx.com>
     [not found]     ` <56B1BAF8.2050907@free.fr>
     [not found]       ` <56B1CF40.1030203@xilinx.com>
     [not found]         ` <20160203152104.GP4215@xsjsorenbubuntu>
     [not found]           ` <56B21DDB.6050708@free.fr>
2016-11-18 10:37             ` arasan,sdhci.txt "compatibility" DT binding Mason
2016-11-18 10:49               ` Rameshwar Sahu
2016-11-18 12:42                 ` Mason
2016-11-18 13:22                   ` Michal Simek
2016-11-28 15:44                     ` Mason
2016-11-28 16:15                       ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-28 16:52                         ` Mason
2016-11-29  7:29                           ` Rameshwar Sahu
2016-11-30 10:51                             ` Sebastian Frias
2016-11-30 13:17                               ` Michal Simek
2016-11-28 16:23                       ` Sebastian Frias
2016-12-01  4:09                       ` Shawn Lin
2016-12-01 12:29                         ` Mason

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox