Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] mmc: Board-specific MMC power initializations
Hi there, thanks for the review,
Le mardi 04 novembre 2014 à 13:32 -0500, Tom Rini a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Tom,
On 11/04/14 17:56, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Some devices may use non-standard combinations of regulators to power
MMC:
this allows these devices to provide a board-specific MMC power init
function
to set everything up in their own way.
Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski cont...@paulk.fr
---
drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 8
include/mmc.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
index 44a4feb..125f347 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
@@ -1277,6 +1277,12 @@ block_dev_desc_t *mmc_get_dev(int dev)
}
#endif
+/* board-specific MMC power initializations. */
+__weak int board_mmc_power_init(void)
+{
+return -1;
+}
Since we don't check error return here which I think is fine just make
this a void? Thanks!
There is v3 posted a while ago...
We have also agreed on v4..
Note that v3 and v4 are the same, except that v3 didn't apply on top of
master.
Yeah, oops, didn't delete these after catch-up. I'm still not sure we
should continue adding more unchecked return values just because.
I agree that we shouldn't have an unchecked return value. So we could
either check the return value and print a warning, without aborting the
init sequence (what Igor proposed initially) or just make this return
void (what you both seem to agree on).
I'm fine with both solutions. I guess that enabling a regulator could
fail (say, because of an i2c error), so there is still sense in
returning int.
Let me know of what your definitive answer on this is. I'll make a new
patchset probably this friday (I'm running on a very tight schedule
until then).
--
Paul Kocialkowski, Replicant developer
Replicant is a fully free Android distribution
Website: http://www.replicant.us/
Redmine: http://redmine.replicant.us/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] mmc: Board-specific MMC power initializations
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 06:35:20PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Hi there, thanks for the review,
Le mardi 04 novembre 2014 à 13:32 -0500, Tom Rini a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Tom,
On 11/04/14 17:56, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Some devices may use non-standard combinations of regulators to power
MMC:
this allows these devices to provide a board-specific MMC power init
function
to set everything up in their own way.
Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski cont...@paulk.fr
---
drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 8
include/mmc.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
index 44a4feb..125f347 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
@@ -1277,6 +1277,12 @@ block_dev_desc_t *mmc_get_dev(int dev)
}
#endif
+/* board-specific MMC power initializations. */
+__weak int board_mmc_power_init(void)
+{
+ return -1;
+}
Since we don't check error return here which I think is fine just make
this a void? Thanks!
There is v3 posted a while ago...
We have also agreed on v4..
Note that v3 and v4 are the same, except that v3 didn't apply on top of
master.
Yeah, oops, didn't delete these after catch-up. I'm still not sure we
should continue adding more unchecked return values just because.
I agree that we shouldn't have an unchecked return value. So we could
either check the return value and print a warning, without aborting the
init sequence (what Igor proposed initially) or just make this return
void (what you both seem to agree on).
I'm fine with both solutions. I guess that enabling a regulator could
fail (say, because of an i2c error), so there is still sense in
returning int.
Let me know of what your definitive answer on this is. I'll make a new
patchset probably this friday (I'm running on a very tight schedule
until then).
Lets go with void. Thanks!
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] mmc: Board-specific MMC power initializations
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Some devices may use non-standard combinations of regulators to power MMC:
this allows these devices to provide a board-specific MMC power init function
to set everything up in their own way.
Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski cont...@paulk.fr
---
drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 8
include/mmc.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
index 44a4feb..125f347 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
@@ -1277,6 +1277,12 @@ block_dev_desc_t *mmc_get_dev(int dev)
}
#endif
+/* board-specific MMC power initializations. */
+__weak int board_mmc_power_init(void)
+{
+ return -1;
+}
Since we don't check error return here which I think is fine just make
this a void? Thanks!
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] mmc: Board-specific MMC power initializations
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Tom,
On 11/04/14 17:56, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Some devices may use non-standard combinations of regulators to power MMC:
this allows these devices to provide a board-specific MMC power init function
to set everything up in their own way.
Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski cont...@paulk.fr
---
drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 8
include/mmc.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
index 44a4feb..125f347 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
@@ -1277,6 +1277,12 @@ block_dev_desc_t *mmc_get_dev(int dev)
}
#endif
+/* board-specific MMC power initializations. */
+__weak int board_mmc_power_init(void)
+{
+return -1;
+}
Since we don't check error return here which I think is fine just make
this a void? Thanks!
There is v3 posted a while ago...
We have also agreed on v4..
- --
Regards,
Igor.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2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=acIT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] mmc: Board-specific MMC power initializations
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:58:38PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Tom,
On 11/04/14 17:56, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
Some devices may use non-standard combinations of regulators to power MMC:
this allows these devices to provide a board-specific MMC power init
function
to set everything up in their own way.
Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski cont...@paulk.fr
---
drivers/mmc/mmc.c | 8
include/mmc.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
index 44a4feb..125f347 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc.c
@@ -1277,6 +1277,12 @@ block_dev_desc_t *mmc_get_dev(int dev)
}
#endif
+/* board-specific MMC power initializations. */
+__weak int board_mmc_power_init(void)
+{
+ return -1;
+}
Since we don't check error return here which I think is fine just make
this a void? Thanks!
There is v3 posted a while ago...
We have also agreed on v4..
Yeah, oops, didn't delete these after catch-up. I'm still not sure we
should continue adding more unchecked return values just because.
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
