On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2011/3/7 Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >>> The other real issue I see is that it's kind of nasty to put >>> block-related workarounds into core/quirks.c. The later seems more of >>> generic card interface workarounds, rather than workarounds for >>> specific functionality. It would be like putting workarounds for, say, >>> sdio_uart into core/quirk.c, IMHO block workarounds are still >>> function-level workarounds, and so should be dealt with at the >>> function-level under mmc/card. Thoughts? >> >> The SDIO cards are function-level too, so what you're saying is >> that the file quirks.c should be moved from core/ to card/ >> and extended there? >> If so, yes. >> >> Linus Walleij >> > > Alright :-). > > I'll extend the current mechanism in quirks.c to match on manfid/oemid > and revision. In fact, the current code > assumes all cards use cis.vendor and cis.device, but that only applies > to SDIO cards. > > Thanks, > A > On a second thought it should still belong within core, since it's getting built as part of the MMC core support... The tables could be per-function-driver, I suppose... So mmc_fixup_device takes as an additional parameter a pointer to the lookup table... A -- 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
