[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5459AECF.8000402@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:59:59 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
Piotr Krol <pietrushnic@...il.com>
CC: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 4/5] mmc: shdci-bcm2835: add verify for 32-bit back-to-back
workaround
On 10/30/2014 12:36 AM, Scott Branden wrote:
> Add a verify option to driver to print out an error message if a
> potential back to back write could cause a clock domain issue.
> index f8c450a..11af27f 100644
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_BCM2835_VERIFY_WORKAROUND
> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
> + struct bcm2835_sdhci_host *bcm2835_host = pltfm_host->priv;
> +
> + if (bcm2835_host->previous_reg == reg) {
> + if ((reg != SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL)
> + && (reg != SDHCI_CLOCK_CONTROL)) {
The comment in patch 3 says the problem doesn't apply to the data
register. Why does this check for these two registers rather than data?
> + dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc),
> + "back-to-back write to 0x%x\n", reg);
The continuation line should be indented at least one more level here.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists