Hi, A followup as I did more investigation here... On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Olof, > > Thanks for your comments. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The previous code used the controller-common quirk field to set a >> per-controller DW_MCI_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT. Is there really need to >> do this per-slot? And if so, please explain in the commit message why >> there is need for a brand new quirk for the same functionality. > > I'm happy to move back to using a per-controller quirk here--it > simplifies the code quite a bit since it can use all of the > preexisting quirks code. I originally coded it up as per-slot since > generally each slot needs its own write-protect line. Without ever > seeing any hardware using multiple slots per controller I can't say > how common this would be, so it may be overkill to handle that > situation. Actually, it looks like the per-controller DW_MCI_QUIRK_NO_WRITE_PROTECT was added at the same time as the code using it was added to 'drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-exynos.c'. Since this patch series removes the code from dw_mmc-exynos.c I can also remove the controller-level quirk. ...I'll plan to spin a new rev tomorrow that leaves the 'no write protect' quirk at the slot level but removes the old controller-level quirk. :) -Doug -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
