linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for Keem Bay SOC

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:55:34 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Cc:     muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@...el.com,
        Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mmc: sdhci-of-arasan: Enable UHS-1 support for
 Keem Bay SOC

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:38 AM Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com> wrote:
> On 06. 10. 20 17:55, muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com wrote:

...

> > +             /*
> > +              * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure changed voltage

like a final

> > +              * is settled before and after turn on this bit.
> > +              */

...

> > +             /*
> > +              * This is like final gatekeeper. Need to ensure changed voltage

Likewise.

> > +              * is settled before and after turn on this bit.
> > +              */

...

> > +     struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>
> nit: I got this but as I see 3 lines below maybe would be better to use
> it everywhere but it can be done in separate patch.

In that case I think it would be better to have that patch first. It
make follow up code cleaner.

...

> > +     if (of_device_is_compatible(np, "intel,keembay-sdhci-5.1-sd")) {
> > +             struct gpio_desc *uhs;
> > +
> > +             uhs = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "uhs", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>
> I can't see change in dt binding to record uhs gpio.
>
>
> Better
> sdhci_arasan->uhs_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "uhs",
> GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>
> then you can avoid uhs variable.

Actually it's readability vs. additional variable. It was my
suggestion to have a variable to make readability better.
Are you insisting on this change?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko