On 11/2/2018 2:03 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi, On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:08 AM Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <[email protected]> wrote:static const struct sdhci_msm_variant_info sdhci_msm_v5_var = { .mci_removed = true, + .restore_dll_config = false, + .var_ops = &v5_var_ops, + .offset = &sdhci_msm_v5_offset, +}; + +static const struct sdhci_msm_variant_info sdm845_sdhci_var = { + .mci_removed = true, + .restore_dll_config = true, .var_ops = &v5_var_ops, .offset = &sdhci_msm_v5_offset, };One last thing: are there actually any "v5" controllers that _don't_ require restoring the DLL? Since "sdm845" is currently the only v5 controller maybe just set "restore_dll_config = true" for all v5 controllers and when there's a new v5 controller that doesn't need it then match off the SoC-specific compatible string. As per my review of the bindings patch IMO you should include both the "v5" and the SoC-specific string for SDM845 (and all future SoCs) so you could make the generic v5 case do this...
Yes. QCS404 is one of the target which uses "V5" controller and it doesn't need restoring of DLL. I checked your comments on bindings patch. Will update it in the next patchset.
-Doug
Thanks, Veera
