On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Hi Guennadi,
>
> On 06/13/2012 02:57 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Add a function to get regulators, supplying card's Vdd and Vccq on a
> > specific host. If a Vdd supplying regulator is found, the function checks,
> > whether a valid OCR mask can be obtained from it. The Vccq regulator is
> > optional. A failure to get it is not fatal.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski<[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > v5: put struct mmc_supply inside struct mmc_host, thanks for all comments
> >
> > drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/mmc/host.h | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> > index 0b6141d..4aa8658 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> > @@ -1013,6 +1013,30 @@ int mmc_regulator_set_ocr(struct mmc_host *mmc,
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_regulator_set_ocr);
> >
> > +int mmc_regulator_get_supply(struct mmc_host *mmc)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = mmc_dev(mmc);
> > + struct regulator *supply;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + supply = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vmmc");
> > +
> > + if (IS_ERR(supply))
> > + return PTR_ERR(supply);
> > +
> > + mmc->supply.vmmc = supply;
> > + mmc->supply.vqmmc = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vqmmc");
> > +
> > + ret = mmc_regulator_get_ocrmask(supply);
> > + if (ret> 0)
> > + mmc->ocr_avail = ret;
> > + else
> > + dev_warn(mmc_dev(mmc), "Failed getting OCR mask: %d\n", ret);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mmc_regulator_get_supply);
> > +
> > #endif /* CONFIG_REGULATOR */
> >
> > /*
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mmc/host.h b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
> > index 0707d22..9deb725 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mmc/host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mmc/host.h
> > @@ -155,6 +155,13 @@ struct mmc_hotplug {
> > void *handler_priv;
> > };
> >
> > +struct regulator;
>
> Sorry for not spotting this before. Can we not remove this and instead do an
> include in the top of this file like:
> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
No, forward-declaring a single struct is preferred over including a
complete header.
Thanks
Guennadi
>
> > +
> > +struct mmc_supply {
> > + struct regulator *vmmc; /* Card power supply */
> > + struct regulator *vqmmc; /* Optional Vccq supply */
> > +};
>
> Do we really need a new separate struct for this? I am in favor of having the
> regulators directly in the mmc_host, just for simplicity.
>
> > +
> > struct mmc_host {
> > struct device *parent;
> > struct device class_dev;
> > @@ -309,6 +316,7 @@ struct mmc_host {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
> > bool regulator_enabled; /* regulator state */
> > #endif
> > + struct mmc_supply supply;
> >
> > struct dentry *debugfs_root;
> >
> > @@ -357,13 +365,12 @@ static inline void mmc_signal_sdio_irq(struct mmc_host
> > *host)
> > wake_up_process(host->sdio_irq_thread);
> > }
> >
> > -struct regulator;
> > -
> > #ifdef CONFIG_REGULATOR
> > int mmc_regulator_get_ocrmask(struct regulator *supply);
> > int mmc_regulator_set_ocr(struct mmc_host *mmc,
> > struct regulator *supply,
> > unsigned short vdd_bit);
> > +int mmc_regulator_get_supply(struct mmc_host *mmc);
> > #else
> > static inline int mmc_regulator_get_ocrmask(struct regulator *supply)
> > {
> > @@ -376,6 +383,11 @@ static inline int mmc_regulator_set_ocr(struct mmc_host
> > *mmc,
> > {
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +
> > +static inline int mmc_regulator_get_supply(struct mmc_host *mmc)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > #endif
> >
> > int mmc_card_awake(struct mmc_host *host);
>
> Sorry being a bit picky, I am that mode today :-)
>
> Kind regards
> Ulf Hansson
>
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/
--
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
