[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFp9EEHX1nooBUd7oXCfyaRwFhcikLdxrfcmnoG=2tjEww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 11:51:06 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc: Jérôme Pouiller <Jerome.Pouiller@...abs.com>,
Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Discussions about the Letux Kernel
<letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>, kernel@...a-handheld.com,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mmc: core: transplant ti,wl1251 quirks from to be retired omap_hsmmc
[...]
> >>>
> >>> Combining your suggestions we could do roughly:
> >>>
> >>> in mmc_sdio_init_card():
> >>>
> >>> if (host->ops->init_card)
> >>> host->ops->init_card(host, card);
> >>> else
> >>> mmc_fixup_device(host, sdio_prepare_fixups_methods);
> >>
> >> I think I mostly agree, but why you don't call mmc_fixup_device() if
> >> init_card is defined? (BTW, mmc_fixup_device() takes a card as
> >> first parameter)
> >
> > Because I want to get rid of init_card. It is host specific and not client
> > specific.
>
> Ah, on a second though we can do that independently. Either there is
> some init_card - or something in the fixup tables. Why not both...
> So the else clause is not needed.
I agree, I definitely want to get rid of ->init_card() as well, but
let's deal with that from changes on top.
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists