Daniel Mack wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 04:27:39PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
gDaniel Mack wrote:
[...]
drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
drivers/mmc/core/host.c | 3 +++
drivers/mmc/host/mmci.c | 28 ++++++++++++----------------
drivers/mmc/host/mmci.h | 1 -
drivers/mmc/host/pxamci.c | 20 ++++++++------------
include/linux/mmc/host.h | 10 ++++++----
What about arch/arm/mach-omap2/mmc-twl4030.c ?
Argh, missed that one. And this particular case doesn't fit to my
modifications. I don't know the code well ... We would need to
have a struct mmc_host * in all the functions there calling
mmc_regulator_{set,get}_ocr. Any idea how to resolve that?
Pass it down from the omap_hsmmc driver.
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/host.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/host.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/leds.h>
#include <linux/mmc/host.h>
+#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
#include "core.h"
#include "host.h"
@@ -154,6 +155,8 @@ void mmc_remove_host(struct mmc_host *host)
mmc_remove_host_debugfs(host);
#endif
+ regulator_put(host->vcc);
+
If the core is doing a 'regulator_put()' shouldn't it also be doing
a 'regulator_get()'? Why not leave it to the drivers?
Yes, I can change the patch to do that, no problem. The major reason why
I didn't put the regulator_get() to the mmc core is that I need to have
the platform_device to obtain its name.
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
