From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::230; helo=mail-it0-x230.google.com; envelope-from=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-it0-x230.google.com (mail-it0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D957C21CB2E25 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x230.google.com with SMTP id p139so8789158itb.1 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 11:41:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IudmTbgLDkqSm35MEPhr5kCRYLpiBdZ682koatPg0E0=; b=FETe4z4kg1b6nqQlCbZ1LUy8OYhwr2sRInD/MOgq2LT4/89HJ89BYYaXIudiw4CIjj WzjBX1stwvJARfb40RAMb1NXZ19egt83MDVlBjRzl1mcSRYyd5yQGGM+04VuydAGHMc+ iMiaktKpZSqwJv+2ZdfoFwCiuN2o4vWdEBe+4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IudmTbgLDkqSm35MEPhr5kCRYLpiBdZ682koatPg0E0=; b=LX1kJmYNJjjS7D9h6qzoI8Qq+haba/jodN3ya0kqogBK4Qdmpo6YEr2lc2oNDyD1v4 gvCBzDIVECYusinCA0Z8NY77kRgnlhP6wO2cSkkEonmunmOCIIAczM7/U5N/EuwGl+uu bWpQUVemH7A6TuGV45Y5tWVc7P6Bbg+Z5gsnO5KsImKKb65RZeytt2/B/JTDxOYEB0cR 003rKF2fq+2kAnHstger+pKhfSZV0/IAknQigX3F/04a1ZYQCo++9DuOpwC7flNrIo// L3AtFSVSL1Jo1UyCP5C/2hRecdfUliyTbSe0Yj6bMLrN7a1QGnh9SflS7w9tJkh5iFcU PutA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdQRDQuEZGPL19ZoaJ89q02IZDkOw+a9Ux/u7LpIkTMPZ/oY7E2 2pOMTj4JbVejtMqgXmUBS5dVUOC9Ai5+bVkw2H3hhw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBose4LkykJ0j8udTIOBrOLRvhElZdjzrKS5zM6Ek9ODMiztxqq3Jv1UpGdQaZdqNMAGyucxyLX5nLvx3dSkdCDQ= X-Received: by 10.36.185.22 with SMTP id w22mr2930618ite.58.1515440475545; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 11:41:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.37.197 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:41:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20171207224322.20362-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 19:41:15 +0000 Message-ID: To: "Wu, Hao A" Cc: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "Ni, Ruiyu" , "Tian, Feng" , Leif Lindholm , "Kinney, Michael D" , "Zeng, Star" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 19:36:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 12 December 2017 at 10:56, Wu, Hao A wrote: > Hi Ard, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ard >> Biesheuvel >> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 3:00 PM >> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org >> Cc: Ni, Ruiyu; Tian, Feng; Ard Biesheuvel; Wu, Hao A; Leif Lindholm; Kinney, >> Michael D; Zeng, Star >> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v4 0/2] quirks handling for SDHCI controllers >> >> On 7 December 2017 at 22:43, Ard Biesheuvel >> wrote: >> > Many SDHCI implementations exist that are almost spec complicant, and >> > could be driven by the generic SD/MMC host controller driver except >> > for some minimal necessary init time tweaks. >> > >> > Adding such tweaks to the generic driver is undesirable. On the other >> > hand, forking the driver for every platform that has such a SDHCI >> > controller is problematic when it comes to upstreaming and ongoing >> > maintenance (which is arguably the point of upstreaming in the first >> > place). >> > >> > So these patches propose a workaround that is minimally invasive on the >> > EDK2 side, but gives platforms a lot of leeway when it comes to applying >> > SDHCI quirks. >> > >> > Changes since v3: >> > - remove PassThru argument from protocol members: it is unclear whether the >> > protocol is available when the override protocol is invoked, and my >> > example use case does not need it >> > - replace incorrect HandleProtocol with LocateProtocol, given that the >> override >> > protocol is now a singleton instance >> > - merge notifier calls into SdMmcHcReset() and SdMmcHcInitHost (), this >> > required changing the prototype to take a SD_MMC_HC_PRIVATE_DATA* >> argument >> > and so the prototypes no longer belong in SdMmcPciHci.h and have been >> moved >> > to SdMmcPciHcDxe.h >> > - use VOID* type for capability not UINT64* since we don't know its >> alignment >> > >> > Changes since v2: >> > - use a singleton instance of the SD/MMC protocol rather than one per >> > controller; this is needed to support 'reconnect -r', as pointed out >> > by Ray >> > - use EDKII prefixes for all types defined by the protocol >> > - replace 'hook' with 'notify', and tweak some other identifiers >> > - add missing function comment headers for factored out functions >> > >> > Changes since RFC/v1: >> > - add EFI_SD_MMC_PASS_THRU_PROTOCOL* member to override methods >> > - use UINT64* not VOID* to pass capability structure (which is always 64 bits >> > in size) >> > >> > Ard Biesheuvel (2): >> > MdeModulePkg: introduce SD/MMC override protocol >> > MdeModulePkg/SdMmcPciHcDxe: allow HC capabilities to be overridden >> > >> >> OK, so I did send my v4 but I couldn't find it in my mail folders :-) >> >> Comments anyone? > > I still need some time to evaluate whether the current proposed override > protocol can be utilized in our using scenario. > > Will let you know the feedbacks as soon as I finish the evaluation. > > Really sorry for the delay. > Any news on this?