Adrian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:46 AM > To: Ghorai, Sukumar > Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shilimkar, > Santosh; Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan; Andrew Morton > Subject: Re: [PATCH] omap: hsmmc funtionality breaks when CONFIG_PM not > define > > >>> [Ghorai] thanks and need input again, > >>> we have two tables - > >>> 1. static const struct mmc_host_ops omap_hsmmc_ops = { > >>> } > >>> --> This is without CONFIG_PM, assumed. > >> No it is independent of CONFIG_PM > >> > >> With CONFIG_PM > >> - the driver will restore registers if the host controller > >> has been powered off / on by PRCM > >> - suspend / resume can be used > >> > >>> 2. static const struct mmc_host_ops omap_hsmmc_ps_ops = { > >>> } > >>> -> this with CONFIG_PM, assumed. > >> No it is independent of CONFIG_PM > >> > >> Without CONFIG_PM > >> - card will be put to sleep after 1 second > >> - card will be powered off after another 8 seconds > >> > >>> a. And you feel we should remove #1 > >> Nothing should need to be removed. > >> > >>> b. use omap_hsmmc_ps_ops default. > >> With power_saving it is yes. > > [Ghorai] Is it that power_saving (true or false) is independent of > CONFIG_PM? > > Yes, power_saving (true or false) *is* independent of CONFIG_PM. > [Ghorai] Thanks and would you please reply for query from Kishore and now query from my side too? Is there any use case or a valid scenario when to use omap_hsmmc_ps_ops or omap_hsmmc_ops ? I meant using power_saving option and without power_saving option. Ideally I feel having omap_hsmmc_ps_ops as default with or without CONFIG_PM would be better as it internally has a state handling. Regards, Ghorai -- 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
