Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers

["Zeng, Star" <star.zeng@intel.com>]

Hao,

  IN      EFI_SD_MMC_PASS_THRU_PROTOCOL    *PassThru

Right?

Thanks,
Star
-----Original Message-----
From: Wu, Hao A 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:11 AM
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; leif.lindholm@linaro.org; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Tian, Feng <feng.tian@intel.com>; Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 8:57 PM
> To: Wu, Hao A
> Cc: Zeng, Star; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; leif.lindholm@linaro.org; 
> Kinney, Michael D; Gao, Liming; Tian, Feng; Dong, Eric
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers
> 
> On 23 November 2017 at 12:55, Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 6:11 PM
> >> To: Wu, Hao A
> >> Cc: Zeng, Star; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; leif.lindholm@linaro.org; 
> >> Kinney, Michael D; Gao, Liming; Tian, Feng; Dong, Eric
> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers
> >>
> >> On 13 November 2017 at 03:37, Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Zeng, Star
> >> >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:32 AM
> >> >> To: Wu, Hao A; Ard Biesheuvel; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; 
> >> >> leif.lindholm@linaro.org; Kinney, Michael D
> >> >> Cc: Gao, Liming; Tian, Feng; Dong, Eric; Zeng, Star
> >> >> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI 
> >> >> controllers
> >> >>
> >> >> Hao,
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you help do the evaluation on this RFC?
> >> >
> >> > Sure, I will take a look on this.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Any feedback?
> >>
> >
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> > Sorry for the delayed response.
> >
> > I am still collecting feedbacks internally to see if there are 
> > additional hook points needed or other features/services that can be 
> > added to the SD/MMC override protocol.
> >
> > I think it would be better for this protocol to be general when it 
> > is introduced, which might avoid changing the protocol frequently later.
> >
> > What is your thought on this?
> 
> Thank you for bringing this up internally. I agree that we should 
> carefully consider potential use cases now and not later.

Hi Ard,

Could you help to share an code example of the consumer of this protocol for reference?

Also, we think that it might be helpful to pass the pointer of the EFI_SD_MMC_PASS_THRU_PROTOCOL to the SD_MMC_OVERRIDE_INVOKE_HOOK service as an additional input parameter:

typedef
EFI_STATUS
(EFIAPI * SD_MMC_OVERRIDE_INVOKE_HOOK) (
  IN      EFI_HANDLE                       ControllerHandle,
  IN      UINT8                            Slot,
  IN      SD_MMC_OVERRIDE_HOOK             HookType,
  IN      EFI_SD_MMC_PASS_THRU_PROTOCOL    PassThru
  );

The implementation of the service can decide whether to use the PassThru protocol.

If more hook points will be later added to the SDHCI override protocol, they may use the EFI_SD_MMC_PASS_THRU_PROTOCOL to send additional commands to the host controller during initialization.

Best Regards,
Hao Wu

> 
> Thanks,
> Ard.