Hi, On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Philip Rakity <prakity@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Pankaj Jangra wrote: > >> Hi Philip, >> >> Just a cosmetic comments. >> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Philip Rakity <philipspatches@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> V2 >> -- >> >> Incorporate performance suggestions made by Mark Brown >> Use linux-next as base code rather than mmc-next >> >> The voltage being set should be passed to the handler requesting >> the callback. Currently this is not done. > > thanks -- my typo when redoing the patch -- V3 has this fixed. > >> >> The callback cannot call regulator_get_voltage() to get the >> information since the mutex is held by the regulator and >> deadlock occurs. >> >> Without this change the receiver of the notify cannot now what >> >> You mean to say "cannot know what" ? >> >> action to take. This is used, for example, to set PAD voltages >> when doing SD vccq voltage changes. > > > if you call in that receives the notify does not know the new voltage > then in our case we do not know if we should switch the pad from > 3.3v to 1.8v for example. vccq signaling in SD is normally 3.3V > but in UHS mode it is lowered to 1.8V > Yes right. So that means we need to make change in blocking_notifier_call_chain() too in order to send the voltage back? Regards, Pankaj Jangra -- 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
