Sorry for the delayed response,
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 01:48:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:06:44 +0400
> Anton Vorontsov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There's nothing special, just SoC-specific ops and quirks.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +static void sdhci_cns3xxx_set_clock(struct sdhci_host *host, unsigned int
> > clock)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = mmc_dev(host->mmc);
> > + int div = 1;
> > + u16 clk;
> > + unsigned long timeout;
> > +
> > + if (clock == host->clock)
> > + return;
>
> I assume that mmc core prevents this function from being exectued twice
> at the same time?
Yep, it's called under spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags).
[...]
> > + timeout = 20;
> > + while (!((clk = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_CLOCK_CONTROL))
> > + & SDHCI_CLOCK_INT_STABLE)) {
> > + if (timeout == 0) {
> > + dev_warn(dev, "clock is unstable");
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + timeout--;
> > + mdelay(1);
>
> Could we have used the more polite msleep() here?
Unfortunately not, we're in the atomic context.
[...]
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pltfm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pltfm.c
> > @@ -158,6 +158,9 @@ static int __devexit sdhci_pltfm_remove(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > static const struct platform_device_id sdhci_pltfm_ids[] = {
> > { "sdhci", },
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_CNS3XXX
> > + { "sdhci-cns3xxx", (kernel_ulong_t)&sdhci_cns3xxx_pdata },
> > +#endif
>
> What the heck is this kernel_ulong_t thing and why did `struct
> platform_device_id' see a need to invent it??
It's not only platform_device_id's thing. Sometimes drivers just
pass a constant instead of a pointer (e.g. DEVICE_IS_FOO,
DEVICE_IS_BAR), for example see drivers/hwmon/lm75.c (enum
lm75_type).
Other than this I don't think that there's a good reason for it.
Thanks,
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: [email protected]
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
