Hi, On Wed, Jan 30 2013, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 24 2013, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> > I tried to keep this binding similar to others, that I proposed in "mmc: >> > add DT bindings for more MMC capability flags." Actually, the above is >> > indeed wrong, I would call it "cap-sdio-irq." And in that patch I tried to >> > keep binding names resembling as closely as possible respective MMC_CAP_* >> > flags. I think, it would have been better if "enable-sdio-wakeup" and >> > "keep-power-in-suspend" were also named, following the same rule, but it's >> > too late now. Anyway, I'm not too concerned about the names. We can use >> > "enable-sdio-irq" too if you like. >> >> I see. Okay, let's go with your proposed cap-* for each MMC_CAP_*, and >> the pm_caps can stay as they are. > > Thanks, let's do that. But in fact, in a recent discussion it has been > pointed out to me, that this property > > +- toshiba,mmc-cap-sdio-irq : SDIO IRQ signalling should be used, if > + supported by the hardware, i.e. set MMC_CAP_SDIO_IRQ if > + TMIO_MMC_SDIO_IRQ is also set > > should be common for all MMC drivers: it should be possible to decide per > SD interface, whether SDIO IRQ signalling should be enabled. What do you > think? Shall we add a global "cap-sdio-irq" DT property instead of a > toshiba-specific one? Yes, please. - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- 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
