On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:35:17AM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> This actually is the register value, not the max timeout counter value. >> Then you may want define the API as: >> unsigned int (*get_max_timeout_val)(struct sdhci_host *host); > > Yes, something like that. > >> But i don't think it's necessary to do the max timeout setting in two steps. >> First, deinfe a API to get the max timeout counter val, >> Second, write this val into register. >> Why not simply implement .set_timeout and handle the details in >> platform specific >> host driver respectively? > > Well, that's how sdhci host driver is structured. Doing so leaves the > least details to platform driver, and calling sdhci_writeb() to access > SDHCI_TIMEOUT_CONTROL in sdhci-esdhc-imx seems a layer violation to me. > The current sdhci-esdhci-imx already does something like that. You can search SDHCI_* in the code. It just reuses the register offset definition in sdhci, It's not the layer violation. Regards Dong Aisheng >> >> Furthermore, this API does not help for the patch#1 issue. > > Oh, they two different issues, and should be addressed by different > hooks. > > 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
