Hi Wolfram, thanks for the review,
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 01:13:10AM -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> > Part of a quirk cleanup run. This quirk was only used by sdhci-esdhc.
> > This patch is untested.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > index 9e15f41..fcd6188 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
> > @@ -1962,8 +1962,8 @@ int sdhci_add_host(struct sdhci_host *host)
> > * Maximum block size. This varies from controller to controller and
> > * is specified in the capabilities register.
> > */
> > - if (host->quirks & SDHCI_QUIRK_FORCE_BLK_SZ_2048) {
> > - mmc->max_blk_size = 2;
> > + if (host->ops->get_max_blk_size) {
> > + mmc->max_blk_size = host->ops->get_max_blk_size(host);
> > } else {
> > mmc->max_blk_size = (caps & SDHCI_MAX_BLOCK_MASK) >>
> > SDHCI_MAX_BLOCK_SHIFT;
>
> I tend to think this could be fixed using io-accessors when reading the
> caps register?
Hm, I agree that it would work, but I'm not sure it's going to be
cleaner/more readable that way. I like that here we have one place
for setting the max_blk_size, and it's obvious from the code exactly
where you need to look to see if it's been overloaded by the driver.
Thanks,
--
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
