On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Chris Ball wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 24 2013, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > After an internal discussion it occurred to us, that this binding > > > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> +- toshiba,mmc-cap-sdio-irq : SDIO IRQ signalling should be used, if > >> + supported by the hardware, i.e. set MMC_CAP_SDIO_IRQ if > >> + TMIO_MMC_SDIO_IRQ is also set > > > > actually isn't tmio-mmc specific, so, it can be moved to [1] as > > > > +- cap-mmc-sdio-irq: SDIO IRQ is supported on this hardware > > > > Chris, what do you think? > > Sounds right; perhaps we should call it "enable-sdio-irq" for consistency > with the existing "enable-sdio-wakeup" (which sets a pm_caps flag)?
I tried to keep this binding similar to others, that I proposed in "mmc: add DT bindings for more MMC capability flags." Actually, the above is indeed wrong, I would call it "cap-sdio-irq." And in that patch I tried to keep binding names resembling as closely as possible respective MMC_CAP_* flags. I think, it would have been better if "enable-sdio-wakeup" and "keep-power-in-suspend" were also named, following the same rule, but it's too late now. Anyway, I'm not too concerned about the names. We can use "enable-sdio-irq" too if you like. Thanks Guennadi --- 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
