Hi Russell King: Thanks for your comments firstly. Best Regards Richard Zhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 7:09 PM > To: Wolfram Sang > Cc: Zhu Richard-R65037; Zhao Richard-B20223; cjb@xxxxxxxxxx; > eric@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > avorontsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linuxzsc@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mmc: sdhci: add quirk > SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:46:08AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > - if (cpu_is_mx35() || cpu_is_mx51()) > > > > > + if (cpu_is_mx53()) > > > > > + host->quirks |= > > > > > + SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO; > > > > > > > > Have you tried it doing it via IO-accessors? > > > Richard Zhu: This quirk is used to fix a mechanism problem in the MMC > CMDs execution procedure. > > > It would be very abrupt and ugly, if the IO-accessors are added into > these original procedures. > > > > Please don't get it personal, but IMHO it is pretty ugly the way it is > > now. This quirk is very imx-specific and calling something like > > SDHCI_VENDOR_SPEC in sdhci.c looks clearly wrong to me. By the way, > > what does this bit do, the description doesn't say so? > > SDHCI_QUIRK_FIX_NO_INT_IN_MULTI_BLK_IO is rather too verbose. Isn't > there a shorter version which could be used? > SDHCI_QUIRK_SDIO_MULTIBLK_INT maybe? Yeah, I agree, the clear and shorter is better. I'm discussing with WolfSang that this quirk should be added or not. First of all, we should make a decision that this quirk is needed or not. Then we can refine it. -- 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
