linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] mmc: dw_mmc: add device tree support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205122117340.11826@axis700.grange>
Date:	Sat, 12 May 2012 21:31:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To:	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>
cc:	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca, kgene.kim@...sung.com, cjb@...top.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] mmc: dw_mmc: add device tree support

Hi Thomas

On Sat, 12 May 2012, Thomas Abraham wrote:

> On 4 May 2012 04:18, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de> wrote:
> >
> > What do you think about this patch
> >
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg11259.html
> >
> > and about using mmc-generic OF properties instead of creating yet another
> > copy of proprietary ones?
> 
> Hi Guennadi,
> 
> This patch does not intend to add any custom mmc properties. I checked
> your patch (in the link mentioned above) and most of the bindings are
> similar to what you have come up with except for the "ro-gpios" for
> which I have used "wp-gpios". But this is following what Arnd had
> proposed here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg13564.html.

Thanks for the link! I didn't know about that patch.

> Regarding the MMC_CAP_4_BIT_DATA and MMC_CAP_8_BIT_DATA in your patch,
> these can be derived from the bus width information that the driver
> receives.

Sure. I think, my patch, that I mentioned above, shall be dropped, at 
least in its present form. But if at least in principle we do want to have 
a common MMC OF parser for common bindings, some code from your patch 
would become redundant, I think. BTW, isn't this

+	gpio = of_get_named_gpio(np, "wp_gpios", 0);

a typo? Shouldn't it be "wp-gpios" instead?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/