Hi Andy,
This patch doesn't apply against mmc-next, which makes it hard to review
properly; could you rebase/resend?
I like the look of these changes, just a few comments:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 09:15:05AM -0800, Andy Ross wrote:
> @@ -1450,19 +1440,12 @@ void mmc_rescan(struct work_struct *work)
> if ((host->bus_ops != NULL) && host->bus_ops->detect && !host->bus_dead)
> host->bus_ops->detect(host);
>
> - mmc_bus_put(host);
> -
> -
> - mmc_bus_get(host);
> -
> /* if there still is a card present, stop here */
> if (host->bus_ops != NULL) {
> mmc_bus_put(host);
> goto out;
> }
Let's leave these in -- I think we're depending on the side-effect of
mmc_bus_put() clearing out host->bus_ops. I'll check and submit a
separate patch adding a comment there explaining what's going on.
> + /* Try SDIO, then SD, then MMC */
> + if(mmc_attach_sdio(host) == 0)
> + break;
> + else if(mmc_attach_sd(host) == 0)
> + break;
> + else if(mmc_attach_mmc(host) == 0)
> + break;
Space after if, and perhaps let's use !mmc_attach_*() rather than == 0
for brevity. I guess we could also consider:
/* Try SDIO, then SD, then MMC */
if (mmc_attach_sdio(host) && mmc_attach_sd(host) &&
mmc_attach_mmc(host))
mmc_power_off(host);
mmc_release_host(host);
which would save quite a few lines, but perhaps it's less clear (or not
equivalent somehow). What do you think?
> -out_fail:
> - mmc_release_host(host);
> - mmc_power_off(host);
> + mmc_power_off(host);
This looks misaligned.
> + if((err = mmc_send_op_cond(host, 0, &ocr)))
> + return err;
Redundant parens, and space after if.
> + if((err =mmc_send_io_op_cond(host, 0, &ocr)))
As above, plus space after =.
Thanks! You might also consider splitting this up into two separate
patches, but I'll leave that up to you.
- Chris.
--
Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/>
One Laptop Per Child
--
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
