[U-Boot] [PATCH] x86: baytrail: Add 2nd eMMC controller to the PCI probe list

[Stefan Roese]

Hi Bin,

On 26.09.2016 08:33, Bin Meng wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de> wrote:
>> With this addition, the eMMC device available on the congatec and DFI
>> BayTrail SoM is detected correctly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>> Cc: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/cpu/baytrail/valleyview.c | 1 +
>>  include/pci_ids.h                  | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/baytrail/valleyview.c b/arch/x86/cpu/baytrail/valleyview.c
>> index b31f24e..9868de0 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/cpu/baytrail/valleyview.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/baytrail/valleyview.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>  static struct pci_device_id mmc_supported[] = {
>>         { PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_VALLEYVIEW_SDIO },
>>         { PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_VALLEYVIEW_SDCARD },
>> +       { PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_BYT_EMMC2 },
>
> pure nits, should we use VALLEYVIEW_EMMC2? or should we change
> previous VALLEYVIEW_SDIO/SDCARD to BYT_SDIO/SDCARD, for consistency?

I've taken the new name from the Linux driver as you might have
already suspected. I would prefer to change the other (old) names
to the Linux ones. I can prepare a v2 of this patch or a follow-up
patch for this. What would you prefer?

Thanks,
Stefan