[U-Boot] [PATCH V2 0/3] Add support for the MMC device to the vexpress

[Reinhard Meyer]

Hello Matt Waddel,
>> Sorry, my original comment still holds true for the naming,
>> now the name suggests that this driver is generic to ARM devices,
>> which clearly is not true.
>
> Correct. However, this hardware device was developed by ARM (the
> company). As far as I know the other ARM mmc drivers, like the
> omap3_mmc, are not. So that would be the difference between the
> naming of these drivers.

I see. The "problem" is that ARM is a company, an architecture, and
now even an IP manufacturer...

>
> I don't feel like this driver should be named after a particular
> platform like vexpress, since this driver could be used in any
> ARM hardware.

Correct.

>
>>
>> Can you list which devices have a MMCI that is covered by this
>> driver? PL180 only? Or a series of PLxxx? It should be
>> possible to find a naming that is more descriptive than "arm".
>
> The PL180 is the name assigned to the hardware in the SOC.
> Here is the description of device from the 1st paragraph in
> the manual:
>
> 1.1 About the ARM PrimeCell Multimedia Card Interface (PL180)
>     The PrimeCell Multimedia Card Interface (MCI) is an Advanced
> Microcontroller Bus Architecture(AMBA) compliant, System-on-a-Chip
> (SoC) peripheral that is developed, tested, and licensed by ARM.
> ----
>
> As far as other platforms that use this hardware, it is in some
> of the other ARM EVMs and some STEricsson platforms like the u300
> and u8500.
>
>>
>> (That such a generic name slipped into the kernel must not
>> imply we have to make the same mistake in u-boot)
>
> I agree. However, it would be nice to have a bit of a link between
> the device in the kernel and the one in u-boot and I didn't think
> having "_mmci" in the name would be too objectionable.
>
> Would pl180_mmci.c work? or how about arm_pl180_mmc.c? I'm open to
> other suggestions.

Yes, after what you have described, is it to be expected that it is
always designated as PL180 when licensed and used by a SoC nanufacturer?
"arm_pl180_mmci" would be best then, I think. That leaves the namespace
open for other "arm_*_mmci" controllers that might appear in the future.

Best regards,
Reinhard