On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:06:11PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > +static unsigned int esdhc_pltfm_get_ro(struct sdhci_host *host)
> > > +{
> > > + struct esdhc_platform_data *boarddata =
> > > + host->mmc->parent->platform_data;
> > > +
> > > + if (gpio_is_valid(boarddata->wp_gpio))
> > > + return gpio_get_value(boarddata->wp_gpio);
> > > + else
> > > + return !(readl(host->ioaddr + SDHCI_PRESENT_STATE) &
> > > + SDHCI_WRITE_PROTECT);
> > > +}
> >
> > Aren't you missing the NONE case here? Plus, I don't like having a
> > get_ro-function for the SIGNAL case, because in that case it is
> > superfluous. Though, I am not feeling strong about this if it makes the
> > rest of the code messier.
> >
> OK, I will go back to the existing one, which only handles gpio case
> in esdhc_pltfm_get_ro and get it assigned to .get_ro only in case of
> ESDHC_WP_GPIO.
>
Sorry. I had some reason for moving esdhc_pltfm_get_ro around. We
can not keep the existing approach (what I said above). For mx51
babbage example, esdhc1 uses internal WP while esdhc2 uses gpio WP.
If we have esdhc_pltfm_get_ro handle gpio only and assign it to
sdhci_esdhc_ops.get_ro in .probe only when wp_type is ESDHC_WP_GPIO,
that works for esdhc2 but breaks esdhc1 WP function. So no, I will
not change my code except adding NONE case handling there.
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
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
