Re: [PATCH 02/19] mmc: mmci: merge qcom dml feature into mmci dma

[Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com>]

On 07/13/2018 01:17 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 11 July 2018 at 17:19, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@st.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/2018 05:26 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 June 2018 at 15:14, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@st.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>>>>
>>>> This patch integrates qcom dml feature into mmci_dma file.
>>>> Qualcomm Data Mover lite/local is already a variant of mmci dmaengine.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/mmc/host/Makefile        |   1 -
>>>>    drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c          |   1 -
>>>>    drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h          |  35 ++++++++
>>>>    drivers/mmc/host/mmci_dma.c      | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>    drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.c | 177
>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>    drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.h |  31 -------
>>>>    6 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 211 deletions(-)
>>>>    delete mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.c
>>>>    delete mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/mmci_qcom_dml.h
>>>
>>>
>>> No, this is not the way to go. Instead I I think there are two options.
>>>
>>> 1) Keep mmci_qcom_dml.c|h and thus add new files for the stm32 dma
>>> variant.
>>>
>>> 2) Start by renaming mmci_qcom_dml.* to mmc_dma.* and then in the next
>>> step add the code for stm32 dma into the renamed files.
>>>
>>> I guess if there is some overlap in functionality, 2) may be best as
>>> it could easier avoid open coding. However, I am fine with whatever
>>> option and I expect that you knows what is best.
>>
>>
>> After patch 01 & 05 comments:
>> I will try to define a mmci_ops which contain some functions pointer
>> called by mmci.c (core).
>> A variant defines its mmci_ops.
>> where do you define the specific function:
>> -in a single file, mmci-ops.c or other (for the name, I'm not inspirated)
>> -or in specific file for each variant mmci-qcom.c or mmci-stm32.c
>>
>> following the comment (above), I think we define a single file?
> 
> If I understand the question, the problem is how we should assign the
> mmc host ops, which corresponds to the probed variant data!?
> 
> I took a stub at it and posted two patches which I think you should be
> able to build upon. Please have a look.

I review your patch on mmci_host_ops and init, I agree with your series,
I was going in the same direction.
The comment above was on file organization, what do you prefer?
-a single file with: all callback and all mmci_host_ops of each variant
-or each variant in specific file (like sdhci): mmci-qcom.c | 
mmci-stm32.c ...

> 
> [...]
> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>