[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110530182103.GA2674@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 20:21:03 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
Cc: Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sdhci: fix undue iomem warning
> > a) SDHC Specs (even v3) only mention 0x100, so this _is_ the standard.
> > Do the new cards (which ones?) have anything located in the extra
> > area?
>
> This controller is a dual-slot one, so has two register sets (though
> one set of pins aren't wired to a socket).
There are two controllers and they are packed into one PCI-bar? :( I guess this
needs refactoring of the probe_slot routine then. Just silencing the warning
will just hide the problem.
> > b) your approach won't scale very well
>
> True - a more scalable test would be to check for non-zero length and
> a multiple of 256 bytes, would you say?
That wouldn't alarm for 0x10000 or the like, so no gain as well.
> >> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Invalid iomem size. You may "
> >> "experience problems.\n");
> >
> > I second turning the message into a warning, though.
>
> If the latter method is preferred, I'll adjust the patch and resend.
Reconsidering: Given the current situation, an error message is maybe not a
that bad idea, until the code can handle two controllers in one bar.
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists