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: <CAHp75Vf4eh540P7C=ez05n0eyeVk1_yUmT2TJFbKbH1ZUtw+qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:08:16 +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 12:10 PM Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com> wrote:
> 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:

...

> >>> +     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.

Correct.

> I would use it directly
> not to deal with it. If your preference is via variable I am fine with
> it too.

Yes, I suggested that and I still have the same opinion (It seems the
original code tries to follow 80 character rules that's why I
suggested the change).
Thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko