Hi Wolfram, thanks for the review, On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 01:13:10AM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: > > Part of a quirk cleanup run. This quirk was only used by sdhci-esdhc. > > This patch is untested. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Ball <[email protected]> > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > > index 9e15f41..fcd6188 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > > @@ -1962,8 +1962,8 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host) > > * Maximum block size. This varies from controller to controller and > > * is specified in the capabilities register. > > */ > > - if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_FORCE_BLK_SZ_2048) { > > - mmc->max_blk_size = 2; > > + if (host->ops->get_max_blk_size) { > > + mmc->max_blk_size = host->ops->get_max_blk_size(host); > > } else { > > mmc->max_blk_size = (caps & SDHCI_MAX_BLOCK_MASK) >> > > SDHCI_MAX_BLOCK_SHIFT; > > I tend to think this could be fixed using io-accessors when reading the > caps register?
Hm, I agree that it would work, but I'm not sure it's going to be cleaner/more readable that way. I like that here we have one place for setting the max_blk_size, and it's obvious from the code exactly where you need to look to see if it's been overloaded by the driver. Thanks, -- Chris Ball <[email protected]> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- 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
