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]

Message-ID: <f81384ff-1f7b-28ea-1ec1-2568e9f669ee@xilinx.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 11:10:42 +0200
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        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 07. 10. 20 10:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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?

I understand that it is just about preference. I would use it directly
not to deal with it. If your preference is via variable I am fine with
it too.

Thanks,
Michal