and a
host->ops-> get_max_clock()
function that is used to set the max clock. The code snippet is below
host->max_clk =
(caps & SDHCI_CLOCK_BASE_MASK) >> SDHCI_CLOCK_BASE_SHIFT;
host->max_clk *= 1000000;
if (host->max_clk == 0 || host->quirks &
SDHCI_QUIRK_CAP_CLOCK_BASE_BROKEN) {
if (!host->ops->get_max_clock) {
printk(KERN_ERR
"%s: Hardware doesn't specify base clock "
"frequency.\n", mmc_hostname(mmc));
return -ENODEV;
}
host->max_clk = host->ops->get_max_clock(host);
}
The quirk seems redundant since this could be coded as follows to remove the
need for the quirk
> + if (host->ops->get_max_clock)
> host->max_clk = host->ops->get_max_clock(host);
> + else {
> + host->max_clk =
> + (caps & SDHCI_CLOCK_BASE_MASK)
> + >> SDHCI_CLOCK_BASE_SHIFT;
> + host->max_clk *= 1000000;
> + }
> +
> + if (host->max_clk == 0) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR
> + "%s: Hardware doesn't specify base clock "
> + "frequency.\n", mmc_hostname(mmc));
> + return -ENODEV;
> }
>
This approach was not used since it was felt a quirk was needed.
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/2/19/4540115
but the quirk redundant and it requires two items be set; the quirk and the
callback.
Defining the quirk and not the callback is meaningless.
The change proposed by Richard Zhu for handling write protect uses only a
callback.
<snip>
static int sdhci_get_ro(struct mmc_host *mmc)
{
struct sdhci_host *host;
unsigned long flags;
int present;
host = mmc_priv(mmc);
if (host->ops->get_ro)
return host->ops->get_ro(host);
spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
<end snip>
What is the correct practice?
Philip--
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
