Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:59:54PM +0200, Arnaud Patard wrote: >> Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:30:42AM +0200, Arnaud Patard wrote: >> >> Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> > The patch extends card_detect and write_protect support to get mx5 >> >> > family and more scenarios supported. The changes include: >> >> > >> >> > * Turn platform_data from optional to mandatory >> >> > * Add cd_types and wp_types into platform_data to cover more use >> >> > cases >> >> > * Remove the use of flag ESDHC_FLAG_GPIO_FOR_CD >> >> > * Adjust machine codes to adopt the platform_data changes >> >> >> >> Before I go and test theses patches, I'd like to get some >> >> clarification. From what I see, you've modified all over the place the >> >> code to provide a platform_data, setting wp/cd type to type "NONE", as >> >> if it was the default you choose. Why this default and not considerer >> >> the "SIGNAL" type being the default ? Is this choice the safest one when >> >> one doesn't know what type to choose or can it have some bad side >> >> effects ? >> > >> > The mx51_babbage is the only board support I'm concerned about in >> > this patch. For other boards, I chose to translate the NULL pdata >> > into "NONE" for both wp/cd types as the safest one, because I do not >> > have (or care to check) the board schematics telling how wp/cd are >> > routed on those boards. The patch ensures there is no regression >> > for those boards, and let people who have schematics to set up wp/cd >> > types later. >> >> ok. Thanks for making things clear. I see some changes for >> loco/imx53qsb. Do you need testers for it too or you've tested it ? >> > I do not see changes for loco except NULL pdata -> "NONE" types. But > testing are always welcomed and appreciated. oops, sorry. I mixed with the other patches sent today (http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-June/052705.html) > >> > >> >> Also, why didn't you modify the imx*_add_sdhci_esdhc_imx() functions to >> >> provide the default platform_data by themselves that if the 2nd argument >> >> was NULL instead of modifying all theses machines files ? >> >> >> > As I said above, the wp/cd "NONE" types translated from NULL pdata >> > will be set up properly later by people who have schematics. >> >> You're not answering my question about moving the NULL-> "NONE" type >> from *all* modified machine file into the imx*add_sdhci_esdhc_imx(). If >> it's the default, why all machines file have to be modified to set it ? >> Moreover, *nothing* AFAICS is preventing to call theses functions will >> NULL. What will happen ? An oops ? To me, a default is the value set >> when nothing is set, and clearly modifying all functions call site due >> to having to provide the default seems imho wrong. >> > Ah, good point. Please review changes below. If it looks good to > you, I will incorporate it in the next version of the patch. > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-sdhci-esdhc-imx.c b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-sdhci-esdhc-imx.c > index 6b2940b..a880f73 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-sdhci-esdhc-imx.c > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-sdhci-esdhc-imx.c > @@ -65,6 +65,11 @@ imx53_sdhci_esdhc_imx_data[] __initconst = { > }; > #endif /* ifdef CONFIG_SOC_IMX53 */ > > +static const struct esdhc_platform_data default_esdhc_pdata __initconst = { > + .wp_type = ESDHC_WP_NONE, > + .cd_type = ESDHC_CD_NONE, > +}; > + > struct platform_device *__init imx_add_sdhci_esdhc_imx( > const struct imx_sdhci_esdhc_imx_data *data, > const struct esdhc_platform_data *pdata) > @@ -81,6 +86,13 @@ struct platform_device *__init imx_add_sdhci_esdhc_imx( > }, > }; > > + /* > + * If machine does not provide a pdata, use the default one > + * which means none WP/CD support > + */ > + if (!pdata) > + pdata = &default_esdhc_pdata; > + > return imx_add_platform_device("sdhci-esdhc-imx", data->id, res, > ARRAY_SIZE(res), pdata, sizeof(*pdata)); > } Great. I've still not tested it but it's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks, Arnaud -- 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
