On Thursday 26 July 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:06:42 -0700
> David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -302,13 +309,14 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rq(struct mmc_q
> > goto cmd_err;
> > }
> >
> > - if (rq_data_dir(req) != READ) {
> > + if (!mmc_host_is_spi(card->host) && rq_data_dir(req) != READ) {
> > do {
> > int err;
> >
> > cmd.opcode = MMC_SEND_STATUS;
> > cmd.arg = card->rca << 16;
> > - cmd.flags = MMC_RSP_R1 | MMC_CMD_AC;
> > + cmd.flags = MMC_RSP_SPI_R2 | MMC_RSP_R1
> > + | MMC_CMD_AC;
> > err = mmc_wait_for_cmd(card->host, &cmd, 5);
> > if (err) {
> > printk(KERN_ERR "%s: error %d
> > requesting status\n",
>
> Nitpicking, but if this code isn't executed on a SPI host then a SPI
> response type is hardly needed. :)
But then it can't hurt either, and will be safer to cut'n'paste. :)
Andrew Morton regularly gives feedback which amounts to "that's correct
in this context, but please adopt this always-safe idiom" on the grounds
that a *LOT* of Linux code is developed by cloning. It's hard for me to
disagree with that... especially when I see my code showing up in some
rather strange contexts!
> Otherwise ok.
So -- should I change that?
- Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
spi-devel-general mailing list
spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
