On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 09:05:41PM +0000, Chris Ball wrote: > > > If there still isn't a better alternative in mind, I'm thinking about > > > going ahead and taking this patch, and then reusing the quirk bit for > > > Chuanxiao's "mmc: set a suitable max_discard_sectors value for HC" > > > patchset. > > > > What about using the SZ_2048 quirk instead which could be done via > > io-accessors? > > That sounds fine too; I thought this one was more straightforward. > > > That being said, I have a train travel tomorrow and will try to > > see if a fixup() function would make sense for this one. Can you > > wait one more day? > > Sure, no immediate hurry. Thanks! So, I had a look today: Hmm.... I wanted something like a fixup-function called at the end of sdhci_add_host which could handle all quirks doing some "mmc->..." changes. (I know that Olof doesn't like this because it breaks abstraction. There might be a middle-way, though.) What bugs me with that approach is that it won't help against all quirks, so we would need to replace all other quirks with functions, too. I'd think a combination of QUIRKS and a fixup-function will be too confusing (we have that to some degree already). Changing all at once is a major task though if you want to group them properly and not do a 1:1 mapping. I'd like to hear other people's opinion at this point. For now, my suggestion would be to remove those quirks which could be handled via io-accessors. That could be done on a step by step basis and should not create confusion if all registers flaws are handled via io-accessors. But that's just my brainstorming, so looking forward to comments. Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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
